On 01/26/2014 04:32 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > I guess there are people that like to do this kind of journalism, > or even find a way to make a living off of it. I am even glad this > kind of activity exists. (And it does exist even for other > semi-technical conversational mailing lists.) However, I think its > clear that once a story lands on arstechnica or slashdot (or even > Nature) that the readers aren't really participants any more than people > that watch Nova are scientists (just for watching).
The topic deserves attention. The (alleged) decline of facebook in favor of instagram and the like, the (alleged) failure of Google+, the shift from personal blogging to corporate/issue blogging, etc. are all direct consequences of the (filosofickle) differences you're talking about here. Renee' made the comment to me last night that she can't even imagine what "the future" means to current high school students. I suggested we should probably listen to more rap or popular music just to help keep tabs on it. But both of us have such a severely negative reaction to that music that we can't bring ourselves to do it. I've _forced_ myself to wade into lots of things I initially had bad reactions to, though. And each time I do it, I'm rewarded. In fact, the harder I try, the more rewarding it becomes. I accidentally spent some of my morning reading this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jhs/dark_arts_of_rationality/ > Today, we're going to talk about Dark rationalist techniques: productivity > tools which seem incoherent, mad, and downright irrational. These techniques > include: > > 1. Willful Inconsistency > 2. Intentional Compartmentalization > 3. Modifying Terminal Goals -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
