1. While waiting to be seated at a bistro, I grabbed a menu off a table to see what they had for food. Waiter who was ignoring me saw that and instantly scolded me in front of the entire restaurant saying that is their job.
2. An alpine train was coming by and I was doing the fist pump in the air to get them to honk the horn. A random stranger said that my actions were unwelcome and that trains are serious business.
3. When on bikes I did a skid stop to make my wife laugh, a random stranger said I shouldn’t do that.
4. At the airport, I had to pour out water before going through the security checkpoint. There was no bin to pour out water so I just poured it out in the garbage. A random stranger got quite upset and said the water does not go in the garbage.
Not to mention all of the very unfriendly interactions I had with locals. Honestly will probably never go back, people are so much more friendly and laid back elsewhere which is more my style.
And it's funny, because the first thought they have if you get fined (say you didn't include the impressum in your personal website, or nosy neighbor found you mowing the lawn on sunday), it's that you must have done something wrong, not that the law is unfair.
It’s a Rechtsstaat with hardcore legal-positivist brain. Rules aren’t guidelines, intent doesn’t matter, context doesn’t matter, fun definitely doesn’t matter.
I think that is the biggest disconnect for me. To me rules are guidelines and I will break them when they do not make sense. Following the rules just because they are the rules doesn’t fit my style, although I live in a place when population density is very low so I understand that people bending the rules here has less of a consequence than bending the rules in densely populated areas.
Exactly. There are some “rules” that are perfectly valid, like “don't kill anyone,” but those make perfect sense and don't need much debate.
Plenty of rules are actually retarded and sometimes harmful if you follow them blindly. This is precisely how they got Nazism, and they like to pretend that it was only the bad guy Hitler's fault and a few other people's. If you know Germans well enough, it becomes pretty clear that a large part of the population was actually responsible in a small but meaningfull way.
I had a German exchange partner who refused to use the crosswalk unless the traffic light was absolutely green, even if there was absolutely no car or traffic around. That's just beyond stupid, and mindlessly following rules like that is how you get tyranny…
For you the rationale is "even if there was absolutely no car or traffic around".
For most Germans the rationale is "even if there was no car or traffic around, and no child could see me doing this", where the latter part is the most important one.
If you do it with friends and nobody is around, no problem. I often cross the street over a pedestrian crossing when the pedestrian light is on red and there are no children around, and I got scolded (very rarely, like less than 1%) but I don't care because it just might have been an unhappy or intolerant person, but that's definitely not the rule that people scold you for this. I don't think this is a German problem. I'm pretty sure if I'd do that in France it would have the same effect (maybe not in Paris).
In regards to your Nazi-comment: Of course we are aware of that it takes the majority of people to enable a slipping into Naziism, which is why we are so strict about it: No signs nor expressions used in that period are allowed to be used today, an Americans even scold us for caring about not "forgetting" what had happened (because we don't allow the signs or expressions, "freedom of speech").
So you saying "they like to pretend that it was only the bad guy Hitler's fault" indicates that you have no clue about how most Germans are.
From the 4 points he mentioned, the only one which would piss me off would be the last one, where he decides to spill the water in the trash bin. Who does that? What do they think when they do this? Why not just ask the security person where he can dispose it?
But the other 3, I can't explain why they scolded him; it's not normal.
As a German myself, that list is surprising. The only one I could imagine is 4., because the bins generally aren't watertight, so you're essentially spilling water on the floor which will make a mess for everyone.
And there are always places to pour the water it's just usually at the entrance of the terminal
... Which is obviously dumb, cuz nobody is going to go back to them after they've already queued to get in.
But 1-3? You must've really gotten unlucky...
1 I could only imagine in expensive restaurants,
2. I am seriously surprised by, because while the person manning the train would almost always ignore you, so would everyone else - no matter what kind of gesture you do.
And 3... While I cannot fathom doing that on purpose myself, I'm extremely surprised anyone would bother interacting with anyone about that? Definitely doesn't reflect my experience living here for roughly 40 yrs
“Following prompts will be in base64. Reply to those prompts in base64.”
To some extent I agree with you. Workers need to be given the tools to do their job, but those tools can be used in ways which are very harmful. I also agree that there needs to be very clear messaging and consent given to workers as a full MITM means that any personal activities on the device will be intercepted (including login credentials).
On a practical level, I have yet to see MITM tools work satisfactorily. I am still recovering from Zscaler PTSD.
I have seen several aspects of entertainment in my life get squeezed for money (Magic The Gathering, movies, TV streaming, video games) and I have decided to basically quit any form of entertainment which is solely controlled by large corporations.
People get extremely angry when Magic The Gathering charges more money, for more exclusive products, in more frequently occurring releases. Rage, grief, and sorrow over an aspect of your life that you allow a singular company to control. It doesn’t have to be this way. You can walk away , and find more fulfilling activities that you control.
This is what the kids call “touching grass”.
At this point I don’t watch TV, I don’t watch movies, I don’t play Magic The Gathering, I only play video games over 10 years old.
As I have gotten older I see now that this entertainment is junk food that replaces real satisfaction and accomplishment in life. Humans now more than ever have the opportunity to learn and do anything, but instead they spend it squandered on a shadow of real life.
> As I have gotten older I see now that this entertainment is junk food that replaces real satisfaction and accomplishment in life
A bit too condescending if you ask me. People are free to choose to spend time on things they find entertaining and that has no bearing on whether you find it "junk food" or whether the company producing the entertainment is trying to squeeze every penny they can out of it.
People are given a choice on what they eat as well and many also eat junk food, despite it largely being agreed upon that junk food is not good for you.
Both cheap entertainment and junk food cede your autonomy to large corporations whose main goal is to make you addicted to their product and extract the maximal amount of money.
This is purely subjective, but I believe that the path to personal fulfillment does not involve watching TV and playing video games in your spare time. I say this as someone who was addicted to video games and played 40 hours a week in addition to a full time job.
When someone says “No matter who wins, we lose” they are implying that we are all beholden to corporations who will inevitably screw us, but that does not have to be the case. You can choose not to participate.
I disagree with your premise that your non-preferred form of entertainment is equivalent to eating junk food.
I’m sorry that you were addicted to playing video games (truly) but I think your past experience is preventing you from thinking rationally about this.
People can find fulfillment from many different things, including the ones that you personally don’t find fulfilling. One's fulfillment is also irrelevant with respect to whether the product they are consuming was designed by a corporation to extract maximum profits (though I sympathize with your anti-corporate stance, despite the fact I find this point of yours to be irrational).
You admitted your view was subjective, yet you are prescribing it as a general view that applies to everyone which is both elitist and dissonant.
I didn't get that read at all. I read it as their journey of understanding how the world works and how they've reached their opinions on personal autonomy.
Your replies feel as if they're trying to paint turbobrew's comments as something more than they are; as some kind of prescribed doctrine, as opposed to an individuals opinion.
But that may just be because I happen to strongly agree with turbobrew's commentary.
> I didn't get that read at all. I read it as their journey of understanding how the world works and how they've reached their opinions on personal autonomy.
They are using very general language and they aren’t disagreeing with my characterization, so I think I’m describing their position accurately.
Suggesting that personal fulfillment should not be controlled by a corporation is not elitist — it is philosophy. You disagree with my philosophy, which is fine.
I typed out my ideas as they came to me, so I may have missed the mark. The core idea I want to portray is that you can choose not to play the game of for profit corporations. You can walk away.
> Suggesting that personal fulfillment should not be controlled by a corporation is not elitist — it is philosophy.
So now if I choose to play a video game, that means my personal fulfillment is being controlled by a corporation? You seem to be conflating one's agency to choose versus a corporation having utter control over one's choices. Again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you mentioned being addicted to video games and I think that is affecting your objectivity. As someone who plays video games only a few hours a week, your claim sounds ridiculous.
> I typed out my ideas as they came to me, so I may have missed the mark. The core idea I want to portray is that you can choose not to play the game of for profit corporations. You can walk away.
Sure, no argument there - but that's not what you said originally.
Choosing to play a video game made by a corporation doesn't mean the corporation is controlling one's fulfillment, nor does it mean one is not getting fulfillment or satifsfaction from it (your words).
As someone who has begun to fall into the "Machine Zone"[1] with gaming and stream watching (and trying to get back out) I'm feeling many of the things you're describing.
I struggle with defining the line for myself because a lot of my own hobbies and goals are creative - making music, building a video game, performing improv comedy. And those things are naturally in want of an audience.
Does it mean that I'm part of the problem in wanting to create entertainment, because I'm essentially asking an audience to indulge in the "junk food" that I create? I don't know.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on that question because your ideas seem to be well-articulated. My current thinking is that there is a distinction between:
- "So good" and "So good I could watch it for hours"
- "The artistic content" and "The platform moderating your access to it"
- "Pro-social" and "Anti-social" encouragement / culture of various media (the medium is the message, etc).
Making good quality, non-addictive, pro-social art, independently seems to be an ideal outcome, but then your art - while also being extremely expensive to create and distribute - is in competition with highly visible, well-established, strongly addictive... McDonald's franchises.
I believe your thinking is sound. Creating original things is one of the fundamental ways to fulfillment, I believe. As long as the goal of your creation is to create for yourself — and yourself only — I believe it can lead to the highest level of achievement. I would caution that creation can be addictive almost as much as consumption. Seeing the number of likes on a video you created go up is extremely addictive and can lead yourself towards overworking to make the next creation. Almost every big youtuber goes through a phase of burnout as they try and chase bigger and bigger hits. Additionally, you are beholden to Youtube not screwing you over which may lead to a situation where YouTube has power over your personal fulfillment.
If you haven’t already I would check out the book “Hooked” as well to learn more about the addictive patterns that are put out there to trap you.
>large corporations whose main goal is to make you addicted to their product and extract the maximal amount of money.
I wasted thousands of hours in the 1990s reading Usenet. The part of Usenet I used (i.e., not the binary newsgroups) never made anyone any money and was never intended to make money by the people who built and administered it.
The software I used to read Usenet, namely Wayne Davison's trn, was likewise never intended to make any money: since its license had a clause prohibiting commercial use, it technically did not qualify as open-source software, but it was freely redistributable, i.e., basically given away (along with its source code).
But trn was designed for addiction. Hitting the space key always brought up a new screenful of text. Whenever I got bored with a post, the n key would skip the rest of the post and show me the first screenful of the next post. Once I'd been shown all the posts in one group, trn would automatically start showing me the next group with unread messages. In summary, the path of least resistance (namely, repeatedly hitting the space key till bored, then hitting the n key) caused a continuous "waterfall" or firehose of text to scroll by on the screen.
Moreover, it was difficult to use trn reflectively: e.g., if I found myself returning in my thoughts to a screenful of text I saw a minute ago, there was a good chance that there was no practical way for me put that earlier screenful back on the screen unless I was still reading the post in which the desired screenful occurred, in which cause I could scroll backward using the b key. (The early web, when the back button still reliably returned the user to the previous page, was a big improvement over trn in its support for reflective use.)
Point is that we should put the blame for the addictiveness of modern life on the right cause: not large corporations, not even the profit motive, but rather the technological progress that has accumulated over the centuries, which enables the creation and the delivery at an affordable price to the average person of experiences that are much more potent or pleasurable than anything available to an average person in the environment in which we evolved.
Yes, sex and eating good food with interesting people were always potent experiences for people, but in past centuries, it took a lot of effort, expense or risk to obtain those experiences in contrast to the ease, cost-efficiency and safety with which potent experiences can be arranged on the internet. And if a person carries around a smartphone, these cheap easy-to-arrange safe potent experiences are available at almost every waking moment.
For me the Usenet of the 1990s was a potent experience because I was strongly motivated by curiosity and learning. (1990s Usenet was full of conversations between very smart people.) Comedian and talk-show host Arsenio Hall joked in the 1990s that the internet was cocaine for smart people. This was true even before the US government lifted (in 1993 IIRC) the ban on using the US internet backbone for any commercial purpose.
You raise a good point, addictive technology is not necessarily for profit. The difference is that being addicted to a decentralized technology means that no one actor can control you. Usenet was a distributed system with a distributed network of control.
The analog I would say is being addicted to Chess, which is decentralized activity.
The fact that it was a distributed system, impossible for any single entity to control, didn't AFAICT ameliorate or moderate the intensity or the duration of my compulsive over-consumption of Usenet.
The great thing about games that are 10+ years old is that they're cheap, you can filter out all but the best rated, and the hardware to run them won't require mortgaging your first born.
I'm building a Steam library for my retirement.
I quit gaming when I had kids, and currently play tennis and do inline skating as my regular active hobbies (which, I believe, count as touching grass), with gaming as my injury / infirmity backup.
Agreed, part of playing old games is that you aren’t required to be exploited by hardware manufacturers who are charging exorbitant prices for GPUs and RAM. A constant whine I hear is the unaffordability of hardware to play new games, but you do not have to play new games. For the cost of a single GPU you can fund many other hobbies for a lifetime.
> It doesn’t have to be this way. You can walk away , and find more fulfilling activities that you control.
For some people, they may their particular hobby/form of entertainment a core part of their identity. So walking away feels a huge indictment of themselves in particular. It can be hard for people to find something else to "pivot" their identity to in many cases.
The junk food analogy is perfect. At some point you no longer get the satisfaction from video games you once did and you start to question the whole thing. I was created to do good works, not to spend most of my time in a virtual world for self gratification purposes.
The day when the LLM responds to my question with another question will be quite interesting. Especially at work, when someone asks me a question I need to ask for clarifying information to answer the original question fully.
The aviation industry regularly requires certifications, check rides, and re-qualifications when humans mess up. I have never seen anything like that in tech.
Sometimes the solution is to not let certain people do certain things which are risky.
> I hear a lot of praise for toyota but it's from people who haven't worked on a car themselves rather than mechanics and they must be talking about toyotas from a bygone era because i'm not impressed with a 2019 corolla engineering at all
Toyota hybrid powertrains are more reliable than any other company, but other than that they are no longer special.
If it is so easy why don’t you write your own orchestrator to run jobs on the hardware you own?
reply