Sound advice.

PS: punctuation and capitalization are conformist and bourgeois but they do make it easier to read.

Well if it wasn’t you then I apologize.

Yes I was about 20 when mobiles took off. But my “rhetoric” wasn’t proved wrong or right. It was just my perspective. You can have yours too and that’s fine.

Somewhat true if you have anyone left who wants to talk to you by email.

First people stopped using it for socializing, and now it’s slowly on the way out for work communication too IME. Not secure enough. Better to use a secure messenger which requires login. And personally I quite like this, assuming the messenger is on the web and requires no software install.

The reality is that the main surviving use case for email is as a notification engine.

By downvoting my comment you’re saying you don’t care what I have to say. So that’s the end of this debate. Good night.

From an Atlantic article yesterday:

Bruno Maçães, a writer and consultant on geopolitics who has served as Portugal’s Europe minister, told me his phone had been ringing constantly since Trump’s election. European business leaders want to know what Trump will do with his second term, and how they can prepare. Maçães was not optimistic. He scoffed at Trump’s decision to create new, lofty-sounding administration posts for Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, and was baffled by the Silicon Valley types who believe the billionaires will transform the federal government, usher in a new era of unprecedented economic growth, and colonize Mars. “Maybe,” Maçães said. “I don’t know. But if you saw this in another country, you would see it as an acute sign of political decay when billionaires and oligarchy are taking over political policy.”

want to reschedule something on the fly

Yeah it certainly got easier to be late and generally not keep commitments, that’s for sure.

I do agree that communication when out and about is a genuine killer feature. It’s was the original use case after all. But doomscrolling social media, or banking, or shopping, or playing dumb games, or most of the other things I watch people doing in public - personally I am never going to buy the argument that this is about “convenience”. To me it’s pretty obvious that it’s just addiction and irrational social contagion.

Almost all of these things can be done from a computer, siting in comfort at home. And some of them, i.e. communication, are even more pleasant that way. The supposed convenience of the mobile form factor is mainly a function of habit. I speak from experience, having mostly kicked that habit.

The “emergency” argument is particularly tiring BS IMO. Somehow we managed for all of history until basically yesterday without this functionality and got by just fine.

The fact that technology exists is not in itself a reason to adopt it. If only we would learn this lesson at last. Rant over.

Downvoting is intolerance made cheap. It’s a button to say: “You’re wrong, I don’t care what you have to say, LA LA LA LA SHUT UP”. If you did the equivalent of downvoting in an in-person discussion, you would be an asshole.

But what really annoys me personally (someone else mentions it) is that downvoting reduces the visibility of the downvoted opinion. It’s literally soft censorship.

I regularly leave discussions after receiving cheap downvotes in return for my carefully considered contribution. It’s a statistical certainty that I’m not the only one.

Downvoters should consider the opportunity cost of their actions for the quality of the discussion they are taking part in.

Vocabulary is loaded. The words “rich” and “poor” conflate munificence with success or happiness. When we see an injured animal and say, “That poor creature!”, we are obviously not talking about its bank account. By the same token, being short of money is a problem but it absolutely does not make you a “failure”.

Same experience. And it’s a shame.

And yet I’ve found that, occasionally, after I brace myself for the blowback, instead there comes a thoughtful reply which assumes good faith. It’s those occasions which keep me coming back.

All the people here saying, “Just block them” - personally I just can’t help suspecting that these are the same people who themselves are insulting and abusing others, who in turn are saying “Just block them”.

The solution is not that everyone blocks everyone else. The solution is that we behave civilly and respectfully to each other.

I’m hearing lots to vituperation and, well, anger but no actual plans about how to solve any of this. If you’re advocating a bloody revolution, then fine, but that will be the end of this conversation. Otherwise you have no choice but to engage in the democratic process. And that will mean a choice between compromising with your fellow citizens or losing elections. There is no alternative. If you keep asking for what they don’t want, and they are in the majority, then you will keep losing. It’s that simple.

This is called a counsel of despair. Or nihilism. With this attitude you are going to achieve precisely nothing - or, rather, you are going to make things worse by ceding control of your government to your avowed enemies.

In a democracy, there is no way forward except compromise. And the alternative to democracy is even worse. Much worse.

I’ll try a different tack. Because after all, we seem to want the same result.

In my analysis (which, as someone who follows this pretty closely, I maintain is much better supported by the evidence than yours), I have to suck it up and talk to people I don’t like and maybe even accept policies I don’t like.

In yours, you get to feel great about being in the right, with no need to question any of your prejudices much less make any compromises.

If you were a neutral observer watching this conversation, who would you believe?

And you at firing off empty zingers.

like I do every fucking election

Good. That gives you the right to whine (which you seem pretty good at).

The Obama presidency produced some decent outcomes. In democracy you never get everything you want. I agree that the bank-bailout moment was a terrible wasted opportunity.

I’m European who votes green. I want the Democrats to win because that is better for the world. If only you did too.

Your theory is just a theory, and a weak one. The evidence suggests that the election was mainly just a backlash against inflation and immigration, as has happened across the world to parties of all stripes. Not much could have been done to avert the outcome. But it is also clear that a bunch of voters were pissed off by what they perceived as Democrat excesses on cultural issues, and apparently many of those people were in swing states.

More generally: “just turn out the base” is usually a losing strategy in democratic politics. For a simple reason: the cost of turning out your own base is that you will fire up the opposing base and turn them out too. To be sure of winning an election in democracy, you will need to get your hands dirty and persuade people. In practice that will mean tacking towards the center and making compromises.

Personally, I feel worse for the each and every one of the 7.7 billion people who didn’t have a vote in this election but will now reap its consequences.

Terrible, no-good take. It’s because of this attitude, totally ungrounded in the political science, that outside the USA we now have to put up with your bad decisions, once again.

Sorry to be so crude but this really p*sses me off. Your side is now losing in almost every single demographic group, the trend is as clear as day. If it were to follow your terrible advice (which fortunately it won’t) the Democrats would be permanently out of power and the USA would become a de-facto one-party state. You can’t pretend that these people don’t exist or that they’re subhuman. You have to sully your virtue and talk to them and find some compromises. If not for yourself then for the sake of the rest of us.