I never understood the dislike for brutalist architecture. To me, at least it looks like something. It's got soul and expresses an artistic idea even if that idea is "the overbearing power of the state". Personally, I'd take that over the soulless glass and steel buildings that seem to be today's alternative.
Brutalism doesn't signify "brutality" though, it's about leaving the building materials bare and favouring clean lines. Those glass and steel buildings could also be considered brutalist architecture of a different flavour.
I'm not sure what you mean. The internet itself is new let alone widespread access to video sharing.
Part of the problem is that social media isn't social media anymore. Its an algorithmic feed that only occassionally shows content from people you're friends with. If Facebook went back to its early days when it was actually a communication tool, then I don't think you would see the same complaints about it.
define social media. because in UK law its defined as app or website with a chat or messaging functionality, and in US law its even more nebulously defined than that. UK law counts FitBit as social media.
> Its an algorithmic feed that only occassionally shows content from people you're friends with
problem how? ill assume you mean the problem is it shows you or other people stuff that will turn them toxic, not that it literally shows you other peoples content.
I disagree. Not charging a rich person enough to incentivize them to change means that the punishment doesn't fit the crime for them. Similarly, charging people a fine proportionate to their wealth is much more just than a fine that is devistating for the poor but insignificant for the rich.
I mean, luddites have consistently been correct. Technological advancements have consistently been used to benefit the rich at the expense of regular people.
The early Industrial Revolution that the original Luddites objected to resulted in horrible working conditions and a power shift from artisans to factory workers.
Dadism was a reaction to WWI where the aristocracy's greed and petty squabbling led to 17 million deaths.
I don't disagree with that, just that there's anything that can be done about it. Which technology did we successfully roll back? Nukes are the closest I think you can get and those are very hard to make and still exist in abundance, we just somewhat controlled who can have them
Quite a few come to mind: chemical and biological weapons, beanie babies, NFTs, garbage pail kids... Some take real effort to eradicate, some die out when people get bored and move on.
Today's version of "AI," i.e. large language models for emitting code, is on the level of fast fashion. It's novel and surprising that you can get a shirt for $5, then you realize that it's made in a sweatshop, and it falls apart after a few washings. There will always be a market for low-quality clothes, but they aren't "disrupting non-nudity."
So are beanie babies, NFTs and garbage pail kids -- Things that have fallen out of fashion isn't the same thing as eradicating a technology. I think that's part of the difficulty, how could you roll back knowledge without some Khmer Rouge generational trauma?
I think about the original use of steam engines and the industrial revolution -- Steam engines were so inefficient, their use didn't make sense outside of pulling its own fuel out of the ground -- Many people said haha look how silly and inefficient this robot labor is. We can see how that all turned out.[2]
> Things that have fallen out of fashion isn't the same thing as eradicating a technology.
That's true. Ruby still exists, for example, though it's sitting down below COBOL on the Tiobe index. There's probably a community trading garbage pail kids on Facebook Marketplace as well. Ideas rarely die completely.
Burning fossil fuels to turn heat into kinetic energy is genuinely better than using draft animals or human slaves. Creating worse code (or worse clothing) for less money is a tradeoff that only works for some situations.
reply