As someone who has no idea what either of these things are, this reads like a satirical headline. I get an email like this about my company's myriad platforms nearly daily
Congratulations! You’re an adult on a website. If you do t know what something means, you have the ability to click the link and learn, which would’ve taken you far less time than this pointless snarky comment that’s been made so many times already.
I don't know why I torture myself with these kinds of presentations anymore. Aside from the obvious "It's all AI" complaint, it feels like every problem they describe as needing a solution is fundamentally basic human reasoning that they are hoping we'll replace with a non-deterministic interaction with our phones. Splitting a tab by taking a picture and letting AI split it for you? Get out a fucking calculator. Is that really a scenario they think will excite people? Their portrayal of a world where we depend on computers for such simple thoughts is not a positive one.
LMGTFY was an intentionally rude tongue-in-cheek response when someone was asking a question that could easily be answered by a simple search. This is about asking more complex questions that don't necessarily have a single objective answer.
I feel like there's this idea that progress is good because of economic output, but there's this much squishier and more subjective concept of how much a change impacts our satisfaction with life. I think cars have produced a lot of good in the world, but I also live in the US where we've paved so much of the world that people don't feel like being outside on their feet very much anymore. I think it's had some negative impacts on how we interact as humans.
I feel the same way about AI. Does it make me more productive? Sure. Does it make me suddenly hate the career I used to love? Definitely. Every day I'm told to move faster and to love this cool thing that takes away the math and low-level problem solving that I used to get so much enjoyment from and instead makes me a manager of a chatbot. Any attempt at moderation in the presence of upper management is met with clear threats to my job. Even better, my company (and so many others) are finding unlimited budgets for AI while putting off any sort of raises for the humans involved.
I’ll give you the brutal answer that many of you don’t want to hear.
None of you (including me) matter. The only thing that matters is the sovereignty and security of the nation. The people in power care a great deal about furthering this. All the billionaire’s sing to their tune for money does not exceed power.
Moreover - you are only of interest to the state to the extent you are productive. The moment you cease to be productive, it’s in the interest of the state to diminish your quality of life.
Therefore the state cares about output and progress - not about how you feel whilst progress continues on.
>Students can be trusted to obey a simple "no phones in class" rule.
I'm honestly not educated on the topic right now since I haven't been in school for 15 years and have some time left before my daughter starts, but is this rule really not in place in most schools? How could any school justify not having this rule at the very least, regardless of how well-enforced it is?
I always assumed it was a lack of enforcement due to understaffing that was the problem
I tend to avoid placing the blame on individuals (parents in this case) when the problem being described is so widespread. People act as rationally as they can, so if it's that common, it's a systemic failure. Scolding the masses is a fool's errand.
We’re talking about underdeveloped minds in the face of excruciating social and physiological pressure.
I’m pretty sure the systemic failure is, in part, that parents are, en masse, abdicating their responsibilities of guiding their children through the minefield of modern technology, from iPad kids on up.
The reasons why vary - and include being addicted themselves.
I’d love to hear any anecdotal evidence to the contrary - not just a dismissal, or being called a fool.
The society that supports phoneless children no longer exists. It stopped sometime in the 2010s. Taking away phones doesn't bring that infrastructure back, it culminates in something new and worse.
One example is the tension between childrens' independence and roaming and the now lack of payphones. Taking away a cell phone doesn't bring back payphones. It either reduces a child's independence or puts them in more dangerous situations. What it doesn't do is return them back to a time when a couple of quarters could call mom or dad.
You're supposing that there existed a virtuous past in which parents taught their children respect and that if we returned to that past, there would be no need to ban smartphones in the classroom, and you believe that even though this virtuous past had no smartphones.
you’re saying the complaint is that in that era it was also thought of as a new phenomenon.
That makes some sense - it’s been a declining slope, with a huge drop-off point.
But was there also evidence of less-competent people coming out of the end of the machine that’s supposed to produce people to keep the civilization functional?
Probably happened at one time or another - but it was probably also considered a problem……
My original “as a default” verbiage is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but is there for a reason.
Huh? The validity of my take is based on some rule you have in your head? What I'm seeing is someone who is desperate to be right.
Everyone for the last 2000 years has expressed the same sentiment you did.
They all feel exactly the same way. The parsimonious explanation is that this is a bias that develops as we age and like any bias, we're especially blind to it and deny its existence as evidenced in this thread.
I know it doesn't feel good to realize you have a bias, but that rational thing is to understand it and account for it. That too is part of growing older.
> What I'm seeing is someone who is desperate to be right.
I’m desperate to understand what your point is - if it’s that I’m just another old fogie biased against the next generation, then you couldn’t be more mislead.
I’m desperate to have a conversation, for the good of this community. That’s what we’re here for.
> Everyone for the last 2000 years has expressed the same sentiment you did.
I’m not expressing a sentiment. We all are. Entire classrooms of kids are ignoring the authority figure as a default.
That’s the topic in TFA.
It’s…not my opinion. Or a sentiment. Or subject to bias.
Whatever bias you think I’m showing: you should name it! I don’t even know what sort of fallacy you’re accusing me of!
Growing older isn’t accepting someone sneering vaguely and unproductively at you.
If that means curbing the comparatively high consumption taxes in WA, then it's for the best. The lowest income brackets pay an outrageous percentage of their income to taxes compared to the upper brackets because of them.
What about this law makes you think any of the revenue is going to be used to curb consumption taxes? Because that's not what any of this money is being earmarked for. Most of it is basically a government slush fund.
> If that means curbing the comparatively high consumption taxes
“Most of the roughly $4 billion a year the tax would bring it would be devoted to the state’s general-fund budget to pay for government agencies and services. A 5% chunk would be earmarked for early education and child care.
Democrats also say they’d use some of the money to fund free school lunch and breakfast for all kids in K-12 schools, though Republicans pointed out that money is not legally earmarked in the income tax bill.
ADVERTISING
Skip Ad
Skip Ad
Skip Ad
The bill would also exempt more businesses from paying the state’s business and occupation tax. It also would eliminate the sales tax on purchases of diapers, and personal hygiene products such as toothpaste, antiperspirants and shampoo.
It also would expand the state’s Working Families Tax Credit, which sends annual rebates of up to $1,300 a year to lower-income working families. Ferguson had pushed for the expansion of the program and said the revised bill would make 460,000 households eligible for the payments.”
reply