:

Tracy asks “is blogging self indulgent?”, which may be the first counterexample to Betteridge’s law of headlines I’ve ever seen. However, my answer would be a “yes, but…”—IMO, all blogging is fundamentally self-indulgent, but that doesn’t mean that it’s without value, even if it’s not “worthwhile” (whatever that means).

Posted in reply to “Article pairing: is blogging self indulgent?

:

Tell me this version of Popcorn wouldn’t be great music for a Castlevania stage.

:

Potentially controversial opinion: Andor is the best Star Wars ever made. (Also, the post-credits scene in the season one finale is *chef’s kiss*.)

:

Seeing a ton of Aus peeps showing up on Mastodon, which is pretty rad.

:

I muted the word “Musk” on Twitter, and now my timeline only has like 3 tweets in it. Can’t tell if Twitter is busted or if he’s the only thing everyone is tweeting about. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Either option is pretty sad.

:

Is anyone surprised with the outcome of Mr-Free-Speech-Absolutist-But-I’ll-Fire-You-If-You-Criticize-Me’s ultimatum? Anyone? Yeah, me neither.

:

From a colleague this morning via Slack: “I asked a friend who works at Twitter how they’re doing. They said they can’t complain.” (Too soon? But also, 😆😆😆)

:

To borrow a phrase from Liz Lemon: “I want to go to there.

:

I found myself nodding along with everything Kailash Nadh had to say about the “web3” thing. But let’s set aside for a moment the fact that “web3” is a completely meaningless umbrella term for a collection of mostly user-hostile technologies and skip to the important bit:

To think that web3 (whatever it really is) or any other technology will fix deep rooted human and societal problems is to delude ourselves and to rob ourselves of valuable energy—like some distributed ledger technologies do—that could be used elsewhere meaningfully. We need to put human-first thinking way way above technology-first thinking lest we develop a dangerous tunnel vision that reduces and abstracts human problems into mere technology features and transactions, reduce humans to mere numbers and hashes stored in databases. This is already happening at a large scale around the globe with states increasingly deploying bigger and bigger technologies for (on) citizens. We really ought to apply critical thinking and common sense and read a bit of history to truly understand ourselves before we look to distributed ledgers to fix us. (Emphasis mine.)

That last sentence is pretty much perfect; no amount of decentralization or immutability is going to correct for human shitheadedness… the technology alone will solve nothing. There is nothing inherently wrong with the technology that sits behind the web we have—all of the terrible outcomes we see have been the result of a conscious decision to use that technology to design systems that deliver those terrible outcomes because it’s profitable to do so.

And guess what? Exactly the same thing can happen (and arguably already is happening) with “web3”. There is nothing about “web3” that will prevent people from doing shitty things to other people; anyone saying otherwise is either incredibly naïve or just straight-up lying.

:

🤔😆

A screen capture from the Guardian article, highlighting the "accidental" mis-spelling of the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer's name

:

Who wouldn’t want a 10,001-piece, (almost-) 5-foot-tall LEGO Eiffel Tower?

:

Colin asks “how do you balance creation vs consumption?”. It ebbs and flows, and I think in general I’d be happy to get somewhere close to 50/50, but right now I’d say I’m probably around 10/90 as well.

Posted in reply to “Colin Devroe

:

This is 100% me.

:

It’s great to see more people popping up on Mastodon (if you’re heading that way, I’m @campegg@mastodon.social), but I’ll admit to being a little apprehensive about what a huge influx of people will do to the tone of the conversation.

:

Ouch: “What’s the point of paying for a status symbol that announces your status as pathetic?”

:

The vast (VAST!) majority of Twitter threads piss me off—to the point that I’ve muted both “🧵” and “👇🏻”—but the concept of a “trust thermocline” is sufficiently compelling that I’ll get over it in this instance.

:

I’m not much for novelty clothing, but would think about getting a pair of Homer-backs-into-the-bushes Stan Smiths (for a minute, at least… and then I probably wouldn’t).

:

I’ve been a fan of McSweeney’s Internet Tendency for a long, long time now, but this particular piece cuts a little close to the bone. 🙃

:

Some worthwhile ideas to consider in Optimizing For Feelings by the folks from The Browser Company:

When Olmstead crafted Central Park, what do you think he was optimizing for? Which metric led to Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight? What data brought the iPhone into this world? The answer is not numerical. It’s all about the feelings, opinions, experiences, and ideas of the maker themself. […]

And anything new is by nature without precedent — meaning, without data to know whether it will work or not.

:

As a relatively recent audiobook convert, this piece by Meghan O’Gieblyn struck a chord. It covers two of the conceptions that many people have about reading that I find pretty ridiculous: one, that reading must be “hard work” to be worthwhile (this goes for lots of things other than reading, too); and two, that the sole purpose of reading is the acquisition and retention of knowledge. That second one is especially idiotic… whatever happened to the idea of reading as entertainment?