Interesting observation on "the contract" but I think it's narrow-minded in terms of why books haven't died.
When I hold a paper book, feel the pages, see the ink, it's just a superior experience. They spent money on the ink. Craft went into the model of a book that's been around for a long time. It imparts a sense of importance.
It's easier on the eyes. Writing in the margins is a more educational experience than clicking, highlighting, or saving. It's powerfully personal. Once it's written in ink, Bezos can't change it in real-time before your eyes.
It's a much richer experience.
As a side note, am I the only one who doesn't watch Netflix?
Sometimes I find a show I want to watch that's on Netflix, but then I go stream it elsewhere. Netflix is slow lol.
I agree that paper-medium has a huge advantage. If I had to find a word to describe it, it would be without a doubt Tangibility.
The usual argument, is that, people are just more used to paper, but while that's definitively true, it doesn't do justice to how bad screens are in comparison - for a certain subset of use-cases.
Paper is there. It's _very_ easy to interact with, with a _wide_ variety of tools for manipulation.
In relation to Netflix:
I've subscribed to Netflix, a year or two ago. I've subscribed to HBO, a couple of months ago.
Due to the increasing amount of streaming services, I'm now thinking of reverting back to P2P sharing (torrents) with a proper VPS setup (It's legal on my country of residence).
There are several reasons for this - none of those is pricing - which to be fair, is very okay for now - I pay less that 10$/month for both services - I'll probably have to spend more in a personal setup):
- Data freedom - i.e. no way of 1984 disappearing from my library)
- Privacy
- UI/UX-wise stable
- Functionally stable
- An open ecosystem, which means I can hack some tools for it.
Jung said something similar. Couldn't find the quote but it's something like:
The point at which we cannot accept someone else. When their actions are so terrible that we think of them as a monster, different than ourselves. Marks the point that we haven't explored and come to know ourselves.
We can't imagine doing something so bad because we don't really know what we're capable of.
This is a little beside the point, but I'm going to hold the author accountable for his take on a pressing issue.
Author makes the mistake of not holding the retailer responsible for what they sell. Walgreens, Target, and GNC, to anyone who knows what they're doing, are NOT reputable, in terms of herbal supplements.
Go to any naturopath or natural health practitioner and they're going to recommend herbal supplements with their own branding, specialty shop, or specific brand. They're not going to give you prescription, and call it into Walgreens like an allopathic doctor will.
Author is effectively saying "It's not the reputable retailers responsibility to stock their shelves with legitimate products."
Why do you think they sell crap instead of quality herbs? The cost is lower.
Think for yourself, and take your health into your own hands and you'll be a healthier person, no doubt.
Calling for the FDA to regulate and save the day because a bunch of uneducated people blindly trusted big corporations...no.
My official view: The state doesn't have legitimate authority to tell anyone what to do.
Unofficially: As far as the idea of six-year-olds having a say in major societal decisions, I think it points to the issue that there is no prerequisite for adults in the first place.
There is no qualification for intelligence, intent, educational level...anything important. Just age.
Lastly, we're not really talking about voting. We're talking about cult rituals of going to a booth and casting pennies in a magic well.
A six year old already has the ability to "vote" what they do with the power they have. And they have more than they realize.
You could get her a wall clock with hands as she learns to tell time in school. Get her away from the digital format until she gets it and then comes back.
They are more than animals in that they're one of the only animals that would be considered a family member. Really makes you consider whether "love" is a noun or a verb.
Honestly, I used to say things like "I understand you care about your pets, but you should not love them equal to a human. We should be aware of how we value animals compared to humans."
