nevermind

[Snarf Zagyg]

So basically like a prehistoric person

The Unabomber was right about everything!

....well… not everything.

The Unabomber stuff he had gotten wrong. But that stuff about the Industrial Revolution? Right on the money.

 

[Umbran]

That's the point. Using 2 little bombs killed 100,000 people, but avoided a bombing and invasion of Japan that would probably have been at least as bloody as the 500-600k victims in Germany (net positive).

That was the point. But it only worked when we were the only one with nuclear weapons. Try that today and things can get out of hand very quickly.

And, yes, nuclear deterrence may keep the superpowers from going at each other directly. But since WWII the US has been involved in wars that have killed 19 million people, and most of them can be seen as proxy conflicts with one or another major superpower.

There's a game-theory argument that if the superpowers were at more direct risk, they'd fight less.

 

[briggart]

That's the point. Using 2 little bombs killed 100,000 people, but avoided a bombing and invasion of Japan that would probably have been at least as bloody as the 500-600k victims in Germany (net positive). And it may have prevented other victims in unescalated or in prevented wars later on (net positive). It could kill a lot of people in the future (negative). Whether it is a net positive or negative depends on your valuation of the likelihood of these bombs being used in the future.

And, according to whom you ask the question, on whom (I could see people saying that since nukes protected them it's alright, and Ukraine being nuked doesn't change that, only proving than having nuclear deterrant is good, while other people would value human lives 1:1 and conclude it would have been better not to have any nukes involved).

I think the context is significantly different here. USA and Japan had already been at war for a long time. We can argue that the boms hastened the end of the war and avoided a lengthy invasion of Japan, which would have costed many more lives on both sides. But IMO, this shows that nuclear weapons can actually make a war more likely, as long as the aggressor is the only one who has them. This creates a need for a nuclear deterrent, but precisely because somebody has nuclear weapons in the first place.

USA and USSR were too far away to have a direct land war like the invasion of Germany or Japan in WWII, so even if nuclear weapons had not been invented, I believe the cold war would have played out mostly as it did in real life. Several proxy wars, lots of behind the scenes actions, and possibly few more open skirmishes between USA and USSR armed forces.

 

[Bohandas]

Cookies, and what leads to algorithms pushing us into ads, or oh, political or ideological bubbles, is the aspect of social media I mean.

A forum like this isnt 'social media' in the way the algorithm of twitter, or facebook or tiktok, or the various cancerous offshoots of those properties (instagram, whatever) makes social media a crippling aspect of our society.

Advertising works. Propaganda works. Changing News to "News Entertainment" works. Censorship works. If these things didnt work, billions would not be spent on them. The companies in charge of these systems are among the most powerful in the world, paying the best and brightest in the field, to shape discourse across every aspect of our lives.

By FAR, the most damaging 'progress' to the state of our society.

Now, if you'll excuse me, a cloud needs to be yelled at.

Facebook's name is shockingly appropriate in retrospect

 

[Bohandas]

Preventing cookies completely would kill all web applications, including forums. Outlawing persistent cookies would probably kill most online applications, mobile app, a lot of online analytics and tracking

Agreed. We need a solution that kills ALL analytics and tracking without harming that other stuff

EDIT:
Also, since you mentiomed online applications. Very few applications actually have any legitimate reason to be online. On my phone I've used NetGuard to block everything except for my email program, my web browser, and F-Droid from accessing the internet

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Agreed. We need a solution that kills ALL analytics and tracking without harming that other stuff

I think that declaring tracking data derived from user behaviour (which is - as far I know - the basis of most of analytics) as owned by the users, might be a way contain it, or at worst make it provide a bene to the users.

 

[Bohandas]

My choice would be smart phones. They killed my book-reading hobby and make access to social media waaay more convenient, rather than just on a desktop etc. Question is: would I have to kill tablets too? I guess they could only be inconveniently-sized

Edit: I guess the further question is: am I dooming a lot of other positive things because of my smart phone wish?

Without a doubt Social Media and the algorithms which drive the divisions in our society would get deleted, smart phones are a close 2nd. I've said it for years.

I wouldn't kill smartphones, however I would kill smartphone operating systems. Smartphones should run whatever the main desktop operating systems were 15-20 years previously

As for a specific technologies cookies seems like a good suggestion. Social media less so, because, uh, this forum is social media?

Nobody in the history of the universe has ever referred to forums as "social media" outside the context of this specific kind of whataboutism that you're doing now

 

[Ryujin]

I wouldn't kill smartphones, however I would kill smartphone operating systems. Smartphones should run whatever the main desktop operating systems were 15-20 years previously

I still lament for my Windows 10 Phone. Windows Phone was a wonderful thing, worked seamlessly with my desktop, and the Windows Phone platform was ahead of the curve on many technologies that Apple claims as their own (as Apple does with so much that they didn't create, but rather rebranded).

The idea of being able to bring my phone, the dock, a folding keyboard, and a laptop mouse with me on vacation, then using the TV in the hotel room as a desktop computer, just blew my mind at the time.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I wouldn't kill smartphones, however I would kill smartphone operating systems. Smartphones should run whatever the main desktop operating systems were 15-20 years previously


Nobody in the history of the universe has ever referred to forums as "social media" outside the context of this specific kind of whataboutism that you're doing now

Unfortunately old PC OSes do not port directly to a phone. The kernel has to be written to the hardware and the UI has to be specific to mobile. That is why Windows phone OS failed. Gates and Balmer wanted to have a mobile UI as close as possible to the desktop UI and Apple ate their lunch with a better UI followed by Android. Which is linux adapted to mobile.

Microsoft had a suitable OS for their Zune player but by the time they ported that to phone it was late and then Nokia killed their smartphone business by announcing a switch to Windows phone but with no actual product to sell.

 

[Ryujin]

Unfortunately old PC OSes do not port directly to a phone. The kernel has to be written to the hardware and the UI has to be specific to mobile. That is why Windows phone OS failed. Gates and Balmer wanted to have a mobile UI as close as possible to the desktop UI and Apple ate their lunch with a better UI followed by Android. Which is linux adapted to mobile.

Microsoft had a suitable OS for their Zune player but by the time they ported that to phone it was late and then Nokia killed their smartphone business by announcing a switch to Windows phone but with no actual product to sell.

My "Microsoft" Windows Phone is a Nokia. Lumia 950. Excellent camera, like all Nokia phones. My other is Alcatel branded Alcatel phone.