I mean not entirely. Kids who are tech savvy or dedicated or even just kids who are fine with “borrowing” their parents’ laptops and using social media on that. Etc.
But I do think that for a lot of kids it’ll put up enough of a barrier to reduce their usage and access to it immensely.
The fact they ended up buying an Alexa is disappointing, depressing, and upsetting. Normies will understand 95% of the problem and then end up doing something that reinforces the problem anyways. No wonder everything is so fucked
Thanks for the level headed and quantifiable reasoning. I agree the argument you’re putting forth is the most compelling one and the one that most makes me question my own line of reasoning as well. Of course, like you say: it’s always possible that something way down the line is going to turn out to make it all worth it, but because we can’t see perfectly into the future and the world is really chaotic and hard to predict. I think that is basically the strongest argument out there for just picking the immediate best option.
On the other hand, I’m not exactly saying that we need to look all the way down the tree, maybe just like three or four steps ahead, instead of literally just one. Of course, the predictability goes down with each successive step. But I think we can at least think two election cycles ahead without losing too much precision. Especially in cases where the person running is really reprehensible to us, that helps even out the trade-off too, because in the same way that we have assured benefits from their victory, we have assured drawbacks. In that sense your argument cuts both ways a little. (But mostly against me, I won’t deny) I think a lot of the disagreements on strategy here come down to people’s personal values for these variables: the predictability, the confirmed costs/payoffs, the potential costs/payoffs. Which are pretty hard to be objective about.
I think the complexity of it that I just talked about would put things in your favor too, if not for the evidence (in my opinion) that the greedy strategy is exactly what has produced our poor historical results. So this is my biggest question for you because you said history isn’t on my side. But to me, it seems like we have plenty of record of the same sort of “wait til the next election to be picky, this time we have to win, the stakes are too high!” rhetoric going back decades. And things are undeniably getting worse. So from my perspective, we have already been trying the greedy algorithm strategy for the last 40 years. For me that makes me feel like I have not only a theoretical explanation for why that would make things worse, but also historical evidence of it actually doing so. History seems super on my side to me.
I gel with your reasoning style so I’m interested to hear what you think I’m getting wrong about that perspective.
Thank you for responding politely, it is very appreciated.
Ideally, you would vote for someone that you actually like and want to have represent you. Not someone perfect of course, but someone who doesn’t do outright repulsive and two-faced evil things like this lady was caught doing. But if no such person exists, then I think that not voting at all really is the best option, for the reasoning stated above. I don’t want to misrepresent my standards to the political entities, because then I’m giving them an excuse not to meet my (what should be low) standards.
I don’t really know about what’s going on in Michigan, so I looked into it to tell you what I’d do.
It turns out that this horrible Gretchen person is term limited anyways. Probably why she’s being so careless. There are two Democrats in the running it looks like. One being a huge asshole sheriff who wants to attract the AI industry by building data centers. and the other being Jocelyn Benson who wants to protect reproductive rights and has endorsements from local labor groups…buuuut she’s married to a VP of a real estate company that wants to build a data center in Michigan… 🤔 although he did say he’d recuse himself from the projects if she was elected.
So, for example, I would never vote for the AI Sheriff, even if he was the only candidate. Same for Gretchen, if it were possible for her to run. Because I want to do my part to lift the bar higher than that. As for the other candidate I’d have to look a little deeper to say for sure, but the scandals I’m seeing tend to be in a more plausible deniability realm, and I don’t see anything disagreeable in her policies themselves. So tentatively would vote for her.
If people keep voting for any blue candidate, then there’s no incentive for the Democrats to run people that will ever actually make a positive change, and things just keep sliding to the right and getting worse. I know it feels like now isn’t the time to take that kind of risk, but people have been literally saying that for about 40 years now. It’s a big part of why things are as bad as they are now. If people stood up to it like I was saying 20 years ago, we would never have had Trump. And because people aren’t standing up to it even now, we’ll probably have something worse within the next decade.
So, not voting for her is the better choice in the same way that putting disinfectant on your wound is a better choice than letting it fester, even though at first it stings a lot worse than just leaving it alone. I mean imagine saying “ahhh but this cut hurts so bad, now is the LAST time that I can afford to make it feel any worse!”…and then tomorrow you say “oh god it hurts worse now, now is REALLY not the time to make it hurt worse. I need to wait for a better opportunity at some point later…”
The best choices are rarely found by thinking only one step ahead.
Glad Gretchen Whitmer can count on your support!
Deep message: I contribute to the systems that ruin my life by generating dumb pictures and shallow ideas
Person who will do anything for money continues to do anything for money
Blue no matter who!!! 🤡🤡🤡
theory
I detest when a niche group tries to use a general term to refer to their specific thing. Like being in “the industry” or “the community”.
“You have to read up on theory”
And I’m a total believer in ideas that are complex enough that you need a book to understand them, to be clear. But that could never mean anything to the masses, firstly. And secondly, that’s still no need to get pretentious about it. Theory. Smdh
Yeah this and the other rebuttals people posted are all good points. I was exaggerating too much
By making products less artistic and more designed-by-committee, they were able to make products that are just barely purchase-worthy to hundreds of millions of players, rather than products that merely millions truly love. It doesn’t surprise me, this is exactly what Hollywood figured out long ago. Games industry sure is maturing alright…
Me wearing my skull-protecting shirt that says “I’m going to break your fucking skull open”
Yeah, I think it could definitely be done, but unfortunately it would be completely not worth the time since you wouldn’t have any degree.
I guess, but nothing about this really pertains to gendered strength or weaknesses. At least not in reality.
Wisdom is when I say two interesting words and then reverse the order of them in a second clause
Relax everyone, this didn’t actually happen
“We never thought that would happen here.”
When will they learn lmao.
Just give it another few years, and half the people with the same political views as you will tell you you’re equivalent to the far right unless you vote for the right! 🤗
It’s insane that they’ll say it’s designed to be addictive, and then just let the company keep doing that. Like maybe go after the entity producing the addictive substance directly then?