jtzl

I'm not sure that I've phrased this question well, or that I even know how to ask this question well.

Once upon a time, I looked at the web as akin to an igneous rock, whereas now I think of it as a sedimentary rock.

The web has changed a lot in the last ~5 years. Sure, it can withstand a nuclear blast or whatever it was designed to withstand, but it clearly wasn't designed to have usage patterns designed to endure.

For me, the thing that really drove this point home was a (possibly fake, possibly a joke) business card I once saw online. I don't specifically remember where I saw it, but I remember it was like a name and then where the title would typically go, it said "bounty hunter, soldier of fortune," and other dubious jobs. When I saw it, I thought it was hilarious. However, when I tried to find it again years later, I could not.

That experience got me to thinking that the primary usage pattern I had come to expect was not prevalent. Moreover, I remember having to cite sources in school papers by listing URLs, and I was never also taught that those links are transient -- that was something I learned via living.

Obviously, a public school college professor is not like a magic oracle that knows all the right answers and how the future unfolds, I get that. This all just gets me to thinking about the ephemerality of knowledge. I remember being very enthusiastic about Google once upon a time. I saw a Google video where someone from there said Google's mission was to make all human knowledge universally accessible. I was like majorly seduced by that. Now ~20 years later, the web -- you know: the one Google owns 😒 -- is like a maze of ads. That isn't really what I had in mind when I heard "all human knowledge."

Anyway, I mention all of this because my first impression was that humans sought to record what was known so as to build upon that. Now, my impression is that the digital commons got turned into forum of captive buyers without the language used ever changing, so it's a shift that's difficult to detect.

Greetings all,

I just watched a like twenty-five part documentary about movies from like 1870 to 2005ish, and it was fascinating.

Not entirely related and not entirely unrelated, what aspects of films are the best and worst in your opinion?

Me, I tend to like "epic" movies where the protagonist travels somewhere far away, and it bugs me like crazy when the lighting is off -- like when the shadow goes the wrong way, etc.

Greetings,

I subscribe to the .....sublemmies (is there a better tern for this?) That are the main ones for subjects that interest me: Linux, privacy, .....and others, I'm sure. But they're very "high-level." How do I find the "deep cuts?"

Admittedly, I am not a games enthusiast, whether video or board, but I have played both at times. In particular, I played a lot of -- OK, this is totally gonna reveal that I'm an old ;P -- THPS, and I'm 100℅ sure I played both RPG-type computer games as well as like Mario Bros stuff. However, I just have never really grasped what makes video games so enticing.

I suspect this is an annoying and well-trodden path, but I would sincerely appreciate it if you could find it in your heart to help me understand.

For me personally, I tend to look at things in terms of costs and benefits. Through that lens, most games seem like a bad deal. In principle, I like some of the more quirky or esoteric ones, but it quickly seems like a lot to learn relative the payout.

When I was in HS, I had a band. Has that type of interaction simply been replaced by video games?

I swear I'm not trying to troll -- I really want to understand the interplay between video games and psychology. Cuz it seems like FPSes are dominant whereas not too long ago they were a single niche among many niches.

I appreciate your taking the time to read/reply.