297700+ entries in 0.182s
phf: apparently
those
things are really expensive
to run. i used
to go on potomac with Georgetown liesure boat crowd, and short, 1-2 hour runs, would cost ~~3k in gas, and
that was 8-10 years ago
☟︎ phf: expensive
trucks reaffirm your masculinity, of course
phf: no, but i've seen some extensive libraries in apparatchik homes
that i know for a fact nobody read
☟︎ phf: the people who bought up all
the symbolics keyboards
to connect
to
their gaming pcs, because "dude retro switch action"
phf: pre-80s hard bounds as a source of knowledge is a here and now sort of source, same way as pre-2005 amds, etc. not only is it a limited source, it is also unstable. a year from now, we're going
to see all
the fullstack developers switching
to "classics library", and buying up last-known-prints on ebay for +++ bezzle dollars on ebay
☟︎ phf: there will be no great library of
tmsr, but on
the other hand no accumulation and exchange of amulets and fetishes of knowledge, because
the last can be subverted in all kinds of ways we've seen already.
☟︎ phf: the way i understood
that old books
thread is
that
there's no focus on building libraries, i.e. old books as an accumulation of artifacts, but where you get your own knowledge is up
to you. so if ascii is keeping a collection of scanz and gives me a copy, it's both purely between us and also about ~my~ education as a cause of ascii's action
diana_coman: I meant
the *content* of
the old books does not become useless all of a sudden; reading it and/or extracting it and
transferring it (or not)
to
the new medium becomes a different occupation, much akin
to reading ancient Greek basically;
diana_coman: asciilifeform> but
this is not enough, you actually need
the old books. <-
this was not contested really;
the fact
that books are dead doesn't mean
that old books are all useless all of a sudden
diana_coman: life costs quite a lot in itself and
the more elaborate you make it basically,
the higher
the cost, of course
☟︎ diana_coman: yes, question is: are
they able
to
take over or do
they get
their
tails burnt
diana_coman: certainly, my point was not
that cleanliness is a way of exterminating rats but rather
that cleanliness is a very good indicator of whether you find rats
there or not, hence whether worth bothering with some output from
there or not
diana_coman: my experience so far
though has been
time and
time again
that rats simply do not enjoy/survive areas /groups /vicinity of
too many people who are clean basically
diana_coman: I
think rats will also find it increasingly hard economically
to do much on
the net
diana_coman: well, a pgp message at
this point quite serves as
that letter I guess
☟︎ diana_coman: uhm, I found
tons of shit on old pages
too, maybe I just read
too much
through my grand parents' old books or something
diana_coman: the gist of it being
that rats basically do not *want*
to comment on
trilema for
too long because
they find it...very uncomfortable; so yes,
they have full liberty
to come and shit
there and be slapped with a hammer in return, sure
diana_coman: heh,
there was
this discussion which might perhaps be interesting
to you re freedom on
trilema vs censorship of comments on public forums etc
diana_coman: they dampen anything where
they
thrive,
that's why
they are rats, no?
diana_coman: so either you imply
that one should use something else because of rats or otherwise no, online is perfectly good, just kill
the rats
diana_coman: but you started from "online is not good" and
then got onto " because rats"
diana_coman: well yes, not enough filters +
too many idiots -> overwhelmed , certainly
a111: Logged on 2016-05-30 15:40 diana_coman: +
tbh I find it all of a sudden
terribly annoying
that one would have
to go back
to *necessarily* write on paper (why not parchment? why not stone?) *because* of...rats
diana_coman: I mean: if I choose
to write on paper because I like it or whatever I'm in love with paper, fine; but if I do it because of rats
than all is lost already
diana_coman: +
tbh I find it all of a sudden
terribly annoying
that one would have
to go back
to *necessarily* write on paper (why not parchment? why not stone?) *because* of...rats
☟︎ diana_coman: in other words:
the only solution
to *that* is
to..not feed /starve
the rats
diana_coman: well, sewer rats is basically what I was calling
the "mountain of idiots" and
that is a generic problem, unrelated
to books or writing as such
diana_coman: plus it's probably not really all
that cheap
to have your own blog as in
truly nobody can bring it down etc
diana_coman: in any case, I suppose you can argue it
the other way:
the current cheapness of keeping a blog is not necessarily here
to stay
diana_coman: to me
this sounds more like a personal matter really, not sure I'm buying it as anything more
than
that
diana_coman: hm,
that links
to me
to some authors' observation
that writing digitally destroys
the quality of
the writing because you can modify more easily what you write, hence
they'd rather use a
typewriter /write in ink as it "forces"
them
to
think it
through before writing it down
diana_coman: dunno, maybe it all even started with
the printing press
then along
those lines
☟︎ diana_coman: well,
that's already going into
the reason why books are dead, so in any case you accept
then
that yes, books certainly ARE dead and
that was
the original point of
the article as I read it really
diana_coman: basically it's a statement of facts: books are dead people, so if you want all
the good and pretty
to survive, best move it already