< of *course* we're time travelers

Parent

~inquiry

<lies pouty face down to kick and scream a bit>

But that's not how I want(ed) it to be!!!! :-)

Seriously. I simply wanted simple to be good. And what could be simpler than reducing reality down to the size of a screen seemingly infinitely deep in content? Add a keyboard and maybe a touch-sensitive device, the manipulation of which somewhat governs what appears on the screen. Still simple. Too simple for something to go wrong, to bow the Murphyric knee as it were. You think. Or I would. Or did. With the highest of ongoing hopes.

But, no. "F" no. Insufficiently biological. Illusory content depth. Same shit, different URL. Lucre-driven search result bubbles. Trying so hard to pretend narcissism is the same as community. All that link rot, and so much less....

Better than the above sounds. :-)

Write a reply

Replies

~tffb wrote (thread):

Yes, simpler/easier IS better, sometimes. It drove me to the long-standing conclusion that technology (in general - especially consumer tech) is running in direct opposition to Nature, itself. I mean, everything is a PART of nature, but in regards to biological interaction with (consumer) tech, it doesn't "scratch the itch" we think it will, or thought it would. I just sort of compartmentalize things (now I do, I used to try to make tech or/and the WWW a "part" of what I do in life, in the world (e.g. the AFK (Away From Keyboard) language, and whatnot), but now I realize that if I want "THIS" thing, I have to just go DO "THIS" thing, and not try to make someone else what it is not.

Sorry if some of that sounds obscure, but it's the best I would describe the scenario.

Glad to hear you're doing better than the above sounds. Later!