But, not surprisingly, "For most users who are emailing, reading some web forum, social media, and maybe office that matters very little." don't understand or know how to do rolling backups or operate a VM, so keeping their OS up to date is the best option. Denying them that, regardless of how little they use the internet, is reckless at best.
I think she needs some kind of counselling or mentoring because working long stretches like that is not going to lead to long term gain as she's already noticed with her health. The attitude and work ethic are commendable but it's not what I want as a role model for my own kids.
Youth cultures that become catalysts are expressive. They are pushing what you can do. Whether that is making music, doing drugs, skateboarding or being gay. Because when you actively escape the norm you receive ownership of some new part of society that wasn't there before.
However, most modern youth cultures are defined largely by their lack of culture. They are instead about passively escaping society. The top comment on the first video in the article is literally literally "I have no friends and I’m sitting alone in my room laughing hysterically at this video". There is increasingly nothing to understand. It is an entire generation being marginalized. But you can of course argue that many people always were.
Addition: Another example would be the relative failure of things that would be expressive like the "maker movement", platforms like SoundCloud and E-sports.
> However, most modern youth cultures are defined largely by their lack of culture.
That doesn't seem right, even the "Smash Bros" community has a culture, hell people talk about the YouTube community all the time.
Also, soundcloud gave rise to Soundcloud rapper movement and more broadly has been important in the hip-hop community, I don't think it's a good example
How to define a culture is of course a much longer discussion, so I have to defer to my earlier comments. Is the "Smash Bros" or YouTube communities significant enough to be remembered as something special, or is it popular because it is popular?
My point with SoundCloud is that it is a mostly a commercial failure. If youth cultures today was more expressive it would be much more successful. So would make magazine or e-sport venues.
I don't deny that there are cultures on for example YouTube, more the idea that there is something more going on. That we don't understand "beauty blogging", but in the future it will lead to something exciting. No, (or at least mostly not) they will go on to become marketing managers at some company and/or continue to sell Chinese cosmetics. Cosmetics happened last century with people like Estée Lauder.
Asia is a bit of a different story, which I don't know enough about to really comment on. But in the West it is very much that young people have shitty deal and are making the best of it by doing things like playing video games and watching people they can identify with and are popular.
If you think about it a lot of the content is about fitting in, rather than standing out. Which would be the more traditional youth culture.
The comments here so far are one reason I prefer HN. If this was reddit the first post undoubtedly would have been a meme pic with the phrase "Aliens!!" :)
>>The comments here so far are one reason I prefer HN. If this was reddit the first post undoubtedly would have been a meme pic with the phrase "Aliens!!" :)
Sometimes you need to tell the truth, right away. :)
From the article looks like a large body of magma is trying to see the daylight
It always amazes me why historians and researchers start with the assumption that any tale from the past is fanciful until proven otherwise. We have little to no proof that our very distant ancestors sat around making up stories for the fun of it and then passing them on to future generations, when they'd surely be more likely to pass on useful information that keeps the tribe alive. Yes there will be embelishments, but we seem to treat everything from before the last couple if hundred years as total lies.
What I was taught is that ancient peoples did not look at history the way we look at it. When I open a book by a modern historian, I assume the book will be about things that actually happened, how they actually happened, why they actually happened, the correct order in which they actually happened, etc. I expect the historian will tell me when there is ambiguity or uncertainty.
Ancient historians would think this is nonsense. The point of writing history is not the events themselves, it is not to get down on paper what actually happened. What kind of idiot would want something like that? No, the point of writing history is to share a message. Often they would draw parallels between two events to explain something. Now they might need to greatly fudge, exaggerate, change the order, etc. of those two events in order to make everything to fit, but that is fine. The actual events that happened is not important, it is the truth (i.e., the point the historian is trying to get across) that is what is important. The events themselves are not the message, the message is served by the telling of the events, even if the telling is not 100% accurate (as we would see it).
and of course, modern 'history' is also suffused with, uh, spin. Classic recent example : the profound differences in Cold War history as told by each 'side'
I can also think of a concrete example from when I was in middle school : Shay's Rebellion was presented in history class in a completely different light to the way I've come to understand it from independent reading [i.e., in school we learned that Shay's guys were rogues as opposed to folks [generally Rev. War vets] unjustly dispossessed by (among other economic factors) ill effects of speculative investment in government assets and misguided fiscal + tax policy]
That might be the main difference. They would have considered the idea of "preserving your history" to be not worth considering. It didn't seem to be something they valued (at least in the sense we understand it).
The bias you are falling for is the assumption that what you are reading when you open said history book is not just generally about things that actually happened, but far more importantly not just "how they actually happened, why they actually happened" but what has been omitted and left out intentionally to frame a certain narrative that is not in line with the interests of those who make you believe the history book you are opening is 100% accurate.
The difference being that far more in the past where there was an inherent interest in preserving the accuracy of certain classes of events where self-interests demanded and required accuracy, today what you think you are reading, whose accuracy is assumed by proximity to criteria that are surely far more accurate (i.e., order of things that were not fantasy), there is an inherent incentive to distort the perspective because those who record and disseminate the "history" are far less likely also self-interested in actual accuracy of the history. It's essentially the "to the winners go the myths and legends" problem. The accuracy of events actually goes down in many different ways when you start muddling interests as modern society has. Do you ever think, e.g., that we would have written a history in which the enemy is the "good guy", but we just happened to win the war? Reality though is that the history you read assumes an accuracy through formality or deliberateness ... it is the same reason that so many people are conned into thinking that NPR and the mainstream media are somehow inherently more accurate or right, let alone just not devious, because they talk in a deliberate and calm and precise tone.
In many ways the very precision the western world has obsessed about is contributing to the very corruption of its soul because we are obsessed with procedure and process to such a blinding and OCD degree that we miss the underlying message and lessons. It's a rather mentally unhealthy mentality that insists on the "accuracy" that "not all of those who want to conquer us have killed us yet...", thus, post hoc ergo propter hoc, "...our enemies are also just like us because they say they are and we believe their words over their actions". It's an odd obsession with formality and process that has totally negated spirit and emotion and just plain and simply most fundamental and instinctual self-preservation.
So here we are and instead of having learned a history that makes us realize that "socialism" is not about being social and friendly, and communism is not about being a community even if specific details are not perfectly captured; we say, "well, since they have not been done properly we will give it all another go."
Unless we think gods, talking animals, totems, spirits are real we've learned that many stories are embellished.
Another way to look at it that boring factual recipes and rules were not fun to tell and remember but the ones with drama and extra flourish were. So those are the ones that survived better.
Embellished is not the same as made up. Adam could be a real person, just obviously not the first man, but the first patriarch recorded by jew tradition, so his story was mixed with the creation tale. Egyptians believed that pharaohs were gods. Talking animals might be a misunderstanding, when animal names were actually monikers for some persons or tribes, etc.
So what is your explanation for the spacefaring journeys through the solar system found within ancient Hindu texts?
Animals do speak, actually. This is something you might not have come to understand or accept yet, but science is no longer able to assert that animals are not communicating in distinct languages. Everywhere we have studied, we have found one.
So the ability to understand an animal and learn its language is absolutely not far fetched, except to the fragile conception of human history that is the Western mind.
> Unless we think gods, talking animals, totems, spirits are real we've learned that many stories are embellished.
Notice, I prefixed it with "unless we think...". Surprisingly some of us do think, so then the statement doesn't apply there. And I suspect this forum is not appropriate to convince otherwise.
> So what is your explanation for the spacefaring journeys through the solar system found within ancient Hindu texts?
Right. Well ancient aliens apparently. It was on History Channel after all.
There is a difference between a useful story and a true story. If some distant ancestors sat around making up a story of how women were created from men, then this story was certainly useful to them in some way and reflected their truth (social structure etc.), but it wasn't a true story.
Well, it depends on what you consider a true story. We think a story is true if it accurately represents what actually happened (as if a camera was filming the event). Ancient peoples would think this is ridiculous. A true story is one that gets the "true" message you want to impart across to the listeners. A person who changes names, places, events, etc. to fit their message is not a liar, they are a historian. Of course we look at that and think its nonsense, just as they would look at the works of our historians and think its nonsense. Which one is right? Of course, we are biased to think we are right.
The ones we didn't burn and the ones we have bothered to actually treat as history rather than random flights of fantasy that humans went to great trouble to document.
For just one of endless examples, do you believe the ancient Greek gods were real? Some stories may indeed have persisted for millenia. But how does one separate those from the fanciful ones? With corroboration.
Because some are true does not mean all ancient stories and myths are true, and one must be careful to not impute meaning that isn't there, i.e. finding pictures in clouds.
I don't have evidence the Ancient Greek gods were/are not real. I do believe they are real in a sense. At least in collective unconscious, they will influence humankind.
Because most tales humans produce right now are fanciful. People in the past told stories for many reasons, survival being one, fun another, their political conflict being yet another.
But also, I am quite confident contemporary researches don't take old tales as total lies, but neither as total truth.
Except that in an orally transmitted culture, stories are _also_ told to communicate actual, factual history.
So the issue is that we no longer communicate our history through stories told out loud and therefore decided not to be able to conceive of any culture actually doing the same.
And those stories transform with needs of each generation. We don't trust what past people wrote about their own history either and not just because of fantastic elements.
You cannot judge another society's approach to history based on how we treat it.
The presumption of rapidly shifting history in orally transmitted culture is being debunked by this and other works. The shame is that if people would just for a second stop coming from places of assumption like the one you have written, we wouldn't need to wait for research to prove it is worth listening to before trying to learn from it.
When the tales violate the laws of physics, the tales are fanciful. Vedic flying palaces for example, involve expense of energy and energy transfer that a high school
student can calculate. Tragically, there is no mention of the energy source in the tales or we could solve our current energy needs.
You're equating our currently accepted laws of physics as being the only true set of physical laws. How naive to assume that what we know now is the only truth.
Representative democracy can be done right. An independent Anticorruption Agency with investigatory and prosecutory powers irrevocably granted by the constitution, but with narrow scope, can work wonders.
Of course, above a critical mass of amassed power/popularity, nothing can stop a dictator to simply do re-found the state with a new constitution, but at that point it's very much a coup anyway.
Having not owned a Tesla or even been very near to one, does the summon feature have an option for "hitting the brakes" as the article states happened?
Quote - "The maimed Tesla looked as if it would have kept driving, Gururaj said, if his wife hadn’t hit the brakes."
On other vehicles, like BMW, you have to hold the button on your fob while it moves and releasing it causes it to come to a stop, but Tesla does it slightly different I think.
