Humanity is doomed. Only some actual communist central planning could forbid this and the other thousands of "innovations" in order to drastically reduce resource consumption and maybe, just maybe make earth kinda livable in the next 50 years. Otherwise we're just doomed and if not us, the younger generation assuredly.
Honestly want to understand your viewpoint here, is your corcern the resource consumption used in producing VR headsets, this NBA application, or something more general like all computing?
Absolutely everything related to this article except the sport itself. All innovation from now on should go through a committee of scientists and randomly selected individuals to avoid such fucking stupid ""innovations"" to ever exist.
This is super interesting to me -- I would expect that this world view would object to the comparatively extreme infrastructure and capital requirements of professional sports and other in-world consumption, vs. the relatively small outlays for digital consumption.
Is it more to do with resources misallocated from something to prevent human suffering, to something comparably suffering-neutral? (a VR headset with an NBA app on it)
While I can empathize with that, I don't think those resources would be reused in solving world hunger, poverty, access to medicine, or something more directly related to alleviating suffering.
If there's a direct connection here that I'm missing (one of the engineers abandoned a medical degree to become a developer) I'm willing to at least understand that. But otherwise your idea still seems rather tenuous.
Oddly enough, you don't have an issue with the sport, which is also suffering-neutral, and actually represents a massive capital and labour waste by comparison. (Stadiums, redirected tax revenue, bloated salaries, ownership structures)
> Social networks should be about socialising and not a minority of professional content creators enriched by doomscroll-fueled advertisements.
That's absolutely not what Tiktok is. Most people who make money are a majority or random amateur users with massive social interactions, and i see no "doomscroll-fueled advertisements" whatsoever. Ads are very badly targeted, like on every other platform.
Control Panel for Twitter also has an option to hide Blue replies in threads, but it's off by default as you can end up with hundreds of replies "visible" (as far as Twitter's windowing implementation is concerned) on the screen, which tanks performance.
Tweet threads seem to top out at just over 200 replies, so boosted replies make looking at most "popular" tweets pointless, like anything from ${siteOwner} with thousands of people trying to engagement farm for Blue Bucks in the replies. You're lucky if more than 5 non-Blue replies are left standing.
No, because it takes priority over the question of truth or falsity, and it outweighs everything else the person has done. Regardless how positive its impact has been.
Oh, like when some random person who is just trying to get by is subjected to slurs based on some aspect of their identity.
I could take the argument you made in a parallel thread and say that people who feel upset at being labeled fascist or racist or sexist could just choose not to be offended. Why is the question of truth/falsity suddenly so important when it impacts them, whereas it's irrelevant when they wish to make satirical/ironic statements that may or may not impact others?
Separate the artist from his art, and all this bullshit. That's the usual neolib reasoning, nothing new. Capitalists historically never had a problem with Fascism, only posturing.
reply