[HN Gopher] The currency of the new economy won't be money, but ...
___________________________________________________________________
The currency of the new economy won't be money, but attention
(1997)
Author : skaldic
Score : 219 points
Date : 2022-10-26 16:20 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| EGreg wrote:
| When swarms of bots are more valuable than human visitors, and
| control capital, then the "attention economy" will look very
| different.
|
| Unlimited swarms of Bots can already make "helpful and
| constructive comments" that are upvoted by other people, thanks
| to GPT-3. 99% of comment interactions are passive, not an
| interactive Turing test. And the bots can be trained to never
| cuss or pick fights with people. Mission was fucking
| accomplished: https://xkcd.com/810/
|
| You won't see it coming, but the bot accounts will start to
| outnumber people online until 10 years from now humans represent
| a vanishingly small amount of content and "social capital". Just
| like on wall street, the bots have replaced human traders. It
| happens gradually.
|
| And eventually, they'll control the money online, too, for
| various tasks. You'll be working for a DAO maybe, but it'll be
| some menial job -- the way rich people hired peasants throughout
| history to do menial works. Until those are replaced, too, in a
| race to the bottom.
|
| That is what humanity is constructing for itself. Because AI
| innovation cannot be stopped.
| gammabetadelta wrote:
| welcome to the new dystopia, it just like the old dystopia but
| with bots
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| AI innovation cannot be stopped. But the assumption that we
| just have to hand over all the world's wealth to whoever
| controls the AI is far from a given. In a world where human
| labor accounts for a vanishingly small portion of what it takes
| to support an individual, why should we structure the economy
| around pretending that 100% employment is still necessary, or
| even desirable?
|
| Capitalism gets uglier and uglier the more the supply of human
| labor outmatches the demand. In a world run by machines, it
| would be very hard to argue that Capitalism's value out weighs
| its cost.
| svachalek wrote:
| Have to, no. But who would stop it? Corporations are
| basically the beta prototype for AI overlords, and there's
| practically no complaint.
| mistermann wrote:
| In a very real sense, human beings themselves are bot-like,
| from a scientific perspective anyways.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Money is attention though, and the reverse. Companies spend tons
| of money to get the attention of customers. More content/stuff
| means that getting attention is harder.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Herbert Simon, "Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich
| World", 1971:
|
| > "In an information-rich world, the wealth of information means
| a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that
| information consumes. What information consumes is rather
| obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a
| wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."
| thenerdhead wrote:
| To add onto this. The poverty of attention means not paying
| enough attention to oneself. Which is a modern
| "meaning/identity crisis".
| [deleted]
| oars wrote:
| Great quote, thank you.
| mc32 wrote:
| I _wish_ it were actually information people were consuming,
| instead it's really crass entertainment. It think Andy Grove
| nailed it, it's about capturing eyeballs.
| shanusmagnus wrote:
| Thank you so much for this quote! The paper it's from is
| exactly what I needed right now.
|
| link: https://veryinteractive.net/pdfs/simon_designing-
| organizatio...
| monkeydust wrote:
| This quote should be mandatory in handbook for how to write
| good emails.
|
| Maybe it's me but my tolerance for long, unwieldy and
| directionless emails that require unecessary mental strain to
| untangle has diminished to the point where I pretty much ignore
| unless from high above.
| abyssin wrote:
| This is such a stimulating quote! It sounds like a promise that
| it's possible to regain some peace in the middle of a deluge.
| neosat wrote:
| The dichotomy between attention and money (in this context) is
| forced and not necessarily true. While it is true that attention
| is valuable, it is valuable primarily because there is an
| expectation that it can be monetized (either now or in the
| future). There can be some other minor use cases for attention
| being valuable for its own sake but those are a minority. The
| primary goal is to leverage attention (eyeballs) for some kind of
| advertising.
|
| Attention , when it is hard to monetize it, is less valuable
| (again in the majority case). A case in point would be messaging
| apps such as Snapchat or WhatsApp compared to something like
| Pinterest or FB newsfeed. Attention in one of those systems is
| more economically valuable than others. It's true that WhatsApp
| was valued high because of usage/attention despite having no
| monetization but that was more of a strategic play to thwart
| competitive threat as well as the belief that they could monetize
| it in the future (as evident in the current direction that the
| messaging apps are going in)
| slim wrote:
| it is valuable primarily because there is an expectation that
| it can be monetized
|
| your argument is circular. you are defining the value of
| attention in terms of money, then you dismiss defining it as a
| currency because (my interpretation) it is an asset or a good.
| it's like saying that the value of an apple lies in it's
| monetisation, if nobody buys it it means it has no value
|
| attention has value because it's a resource. there's only
| number-of-people-on-earth quantity of attention at each moment
| to extract. if you don't extract it it's gone. you also need to
| compete for it because there's not enough for everybody.
|
| the good news is attention is probably the less discriminating
| resource on earth. every human has exactly the same amount of
| it*
|
| *caveat : the fact you have an equal amount of attention does
| not imply you can manage it optimally.
| extantproject wrote:
| > every human has exactly the same amount of it
|
| Any evidence of this?
|
| https://archive.ph/RkwhK
| nicbou wrote:
| There is the assumption that it can be monetised, but at some
| point it feels like wishful thinking: get billions of users
| then figure out a path to monetisation.
|
| In reality, the right path is to establish a strong monopoly
| and enforce a toll road on everyone. Everyone buys through
| Amazon, but only sponsored listings sell. Everyone buys in-app,
| and there's a 30% cut for the app store. Everyone dates on
| Tinder, but only boosted profiles get dates. You get the idea.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Also if you've got enough attention then forget about direct
| monetisation and go straight for political power.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Unfortunately, I think this is the future. We already had
| one reality TV star president. We have a TV "doctor," and a
| football player running for senate this year. I wouldn't be
| at all surprised if a lot of social media influencers end
| up in office. This is, of course, if the internet platforms
| remain relatively open.
|
| The other scenario (and I think more likely) is that the
| internet media platforms will use the political power that
| their gatekeeper status confers on them to promote their
| own narrow interests. They will form their own content arms
| which will be algorithmically favored, and cut the old
| legacy media gatekeepers out entirely.
|
| Pick your poison.
| merely-unlikely wrote:
| > Unfortunately, I think this is the future.
|
| Not just the future, more like the status quo. There is a
| centuries long history of business tycoons buying media
| outlets for their own purposes. Social media platforms
| and influencers are just a new flavor.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| To some extent but the unprecedented reach and real time
| factor of social media, along with the precise targeting
| and personal data archives from Stasi's wet dreams makes
| this really a new era rather than simply more of the
| same, in my opinion.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Been happening long before the present century and long
| before Trump. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Bill Bradley, Jack
| Kemp, Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, Sonny Bono.
| metacritic12 wrote:
| But attention has been much more monetizable than thought in
| the 1990s. Nearly all forms of attention find some way of
| getting monetized, and this near-fungibility is surprising.
|
| Otherwise, it's tautologically true that "the currency of the
| new economy is X, to the extent X can be monetized" for all
| values of X.
| neosat wrote:
| You're not wrong. But that's not how the headline pitches the
| article. It specifically says 'the currency of the new
| economy _won 't_ be money'; hence my comment.
| metacritic12 wrote:
| Hmm your right that the headline says that. But I think to
| read the article generously, "money" means explicit money,
| like pay per read, or microtransactions, or pay per app.
|
| To that extent, it is surprising how few explicit payments
| I make per week on the Internet (Amazon, Instacart, Uber?)
| yet hundreds of companies get cents of my attention
| (Google, Facebook, TikTok, the tons of content marketing
| companies Google sends traffic to, etc).
| cptnapalm wrote:
| Perhaps the dotcom crash altered some opinions with respect
| to the need to monetize?
| nonameiguess wrote:
| It's not _always_ about being monetized. Politicians command
| attention in order to win votes, and as most people running for
| office were already rich and are doing it more for ego than to
| get even richer, I don 't believe money is often the
| motivation. Sports teams seem like another possible
| counterexample, where being in a larger market with a more
| prestigious history and larger fanbase can attract better
| players in free agency, which may lead to more money, but may
| not, and I again don't believe many of the owners, who were
| already rich well before they ever bought a team, are
| necessarily in it to get even richer. They just really like
| winning and also have enormous egos. Some celebrities will
| command attention even to the point of losing money. Witness
| what Kanye is doing right now, though you can argue in his case
| and probably others what we're seeing is mental illness, but
| pathological motivations still count as motivations.
|
| You might say these are a minority of cases compared to
| businesses trying to command eyeballs so they can sell you
| stuff, but I'm really not sure that proportionality stays the
| same when you take the entire human experience into account. My
| keenest memories of people trying to command lots of attention
| are from primary school, and kids weren't interested in being
| class clown or the most popular because they expected to be
| able to sell you anything. Popularity was its own reward.
| Commanding attention is plenty intoxicating all on its own.
| hinkley wrote:
| And you're making the mistake of equating money and power.
| Power gets you money, but money doesn't necessarily get you
| power. It can take generations for New Money to be treated as a
| peer in some very important circles.
|
| For all the titanically, record-setting dumb stuff Trump has
| said, he was right about one thing. Filing for bankruptcy
| (three times?) didn't make him poor. He just needed to collect
| more favors denominated in cash than he gave out in order to
| get back on his feet. Influence is not taxed, and for all the
| noise we make about taxing the rich fairly, that will only slow
| them down a little.
|
| There is an exchange rate between attention and influence. Yes
| those systems are fueled by money, but in the same way a heat
| pump is fueled by electricity - highly leveraged.
| darkteflon wrote:
| OT but does anyone else find that pages from Conde Nast
| publications such as Wired and Ars Technica constantly crash on
| iOS Safari? I have a few ad-blocking and QoL extensions such as
| AdGuard and StoptheMadness installed, and also use NextDNS, but
| disabling these doesn't seem to help. Just me?
| heldrida wrote:
| Wrote in 1997? This is happening today, I see this everyday on
| twitters, linkedins, etc.
|
| Very good article!
| narag wrote:
| I guess that's the original article where this meme was born.
|
| Edit: actually it mentions a book that was published one year
| before.
|
| I had never known where the expression originated, but surely I
| heard about _the economy of attention_.
| xkcd1963 wrote:
| Maslow pyramid. Money is somewhere down at essential needs and
| security, whilst attention starts at the social level
| cies wrote:
| you can only have 24h of attention in a day, and not many days
| consecutively before you have to pay attention to your dreams
| (sleep).
|
| money, OTOH, has a near unlimited supply. and when you come close
| to have it all you can persuade the Fed to print some more.
|
| attention != money
| cies wrote:
| if you can somehow harvest other's attention; then the
| comparison works again. you've upgraded from wage laborer to
| capitalist :)
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| The problem here is that Netflix / Disney / Youtube won, but
| politicians aren't worrying about Netflix. They barely worry
| about Youtube because it is less overtly political.
|
| The currency of the future is the currency of the past - the
| prevailing story, the mental model that people hold and fit their
| evidence in.
|
| That mental model varies hugely - it provides the difference
| between Republicans and Democrats, between Autocracy and Liberty.
| Polls show the biggest divide based on college education - the
| models picked up or more likely challenged and discarded in
| higher education provide a stark differentiator for modern voting
| trends.
|
| Control the mental model, and the facts hardly matter.
| mjfl wrote:
| > por que no los dos?
| blehblahdoopy wrote:
| mbank wrote:
| I prefer Andrew D. Huberman's idea: Dopamine is the real currency
| jscipione wrote:
| On Halloween Day in 1517 Martin Luther put up his 95 Thesis on
| the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. He expected an
| academic debate among clergy. At that time the Roman Catholic
| Church had such a stranglehold on the courts, media, education,
| and financial and political power that there was no way that a
| revolution of ideas could even be imagined to succeed.
|
| But thanks to the printing press this all changed as Martin
| Luther's 95 Theses spread across Europe making Luther the first
| widely recognized public figure in history. We call that period
| the Reformation today and it was the beginning of the end to the
| Catholic Church's dominance.
|
| In a similar fashion, the NWO has a stranglehold over courts,
| media, education, financial and political power and we have
| entered a new Digital Reformation that just as it was inevitable
| for the Catholic Church to lose its power during the previous
| Reformation, it is also inevitable that the NWO will lose their
| power in the new digital Reformation that is currently happening.
| Only this time, the Reformation is global and it's happening a
| lot faster.
| cannam wrote:
| What an interesting article!
|
| It seems as if the idea is quite literal - that attention may
| become what you need in order to support yourself, a currency,
| not just something you can exchange for money somehow if you're
| lucky. Unless I'm missing something, there's no physical
| mechanism suggested by which this could work - who maintains you,
| who feeds you, who feeds them, etc. I wonder what the author
| imagined?
| toomim wrote:
| In 2010, I was a PhD student inspired by Herb Simon, Goldhaber,
| and others, and decided to focus my dissertation on this topic:
| https://invisible.college/attention/dissertation.html
|
| This was the first approach to _measure_ the Economics of
| Attention, quantitatively. To do so, we define a new type of
| utility function, that can be measured with a new type of
| experiment that you can run via large-scale A /B tests, and lets
| you say things like "The new UI for Facebook is 6C/ per second
| worse than the old one!"
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| people with ADHD are screwed
| mjevans wrote:
| Adblock and similar tools are legitimate medical needs.
| sneak wrote:
| You can't pay bills with attention.
|
| Unfortunately, the way you exchange attention for actual currency
| you can use to buy fuel or build buildings or pay staff is via
| advertising.
|
| In the process we gave immense power to the largest advertising
| companies, Google and Facebook/Meta.
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| Isn't this like when someone with 100 followers on insta wants a
| free hotel room in exchange for exposure bux?
| rkagerer wrote:
| There was a comment here by a throwaway account pointing out
| attention has always been a currency (think courtship rituals in
| nature and the "world's oldest profession"). Wasn't mine, and got
| flagged to death presumably for being too crass, but I thought it
| kind of provoked thought from an unexpected angle.
| justlikethenazi wrote:
| t3e wrote:
| I posted this on a different topic recently and it's apropos
| again: I'm currently reading Tim Wu's "The Attention Merchants"
| about the history of advertising and can't recommend it enough.
| It's informative, thoughtful, and well-written, but not a happy
| or encouraging story, alas.
| csdvrx wrote:
| It seems to have mostly come true, with one caveat: attention
| requires measuring, so surveillance is equally important as
| attention
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| The article is a (correct) premonition. Advertising companies
| have already more than half of our day with smartphones and TV,
| when we will use smart glasses and self drive cars the circle
| will be closed.
| silisili wrote:
| Doesn't sound much different than the traditional 'time is
| money.' Attention is time.
|
| Just ask you can't pay for most things with time, you can't with
| attention, either. But both can be converted to money, via real
| cash or subsidies...
| ElfinTrousers wrote:
| I guess this sounds better in many ways than "the funding model
| of the Web will be advertising".
| gowld wrote:
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Attention = Time + Consciousness
|
| Way more valuable than time or money. This is why
| people(especially buddhists) say to "be present in the moment".
|
| Attention management is crucial in being able to find meaning in
| today's society. Neil Postman did a good job regarding Huxley's
| warning to the world.
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/74034.Amusing_Ourselves_...
|
| There's even some unique ideas like Zombies in Western Culture
| which talk about our lack of meaning and insatiability of
| consuming others "brains":
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35523766-zombies-in-west...
| trgn wrote:
| Neil Postman is the sort of public intellectual that no longer
| exists. Classically educated and proud of it, conservative in
| spirit, tolerant in disposition. The closest we have now is
| obnoxious dark web trolls whose attachment to liberality is
| mere affectation.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| I don't know of any modern equivalent. Do you have any
| suggestions or books to read?
| rg2004 wrote:
| I want to respectfully disagree. Being present in the moment is
| not a result of valuing attention, but instead about letting
| the conversation about the past and the future go. About
| dropping the fears that were created in the past; the same
| fears that have us worry about the future. It's about letting
| go of fears and expectations. Letting go of the meaning we
| assign to the past and future. About really choosing the
| perspective that we wish to view the present through, rather
| than being at the effect of the stories we make up about the
| past and future.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| I don't disagree with anything you said. I'd just summarize
| it as "mindfulness". Which is present-focused attention in my
| eyes.
| [deleted]
| dbtc wrote:
| You're describing the what, but if you ask a (meditating)
| buddhist how to this, they'll tell you to observe your breath
| (or some other concentration technique), which is an exercise
| to train your ability to manage your attention. Being (in
| the) present is a skill.
| spoiler wrote:
| You are correct, but the parent is also correct. Meditation
| was a tool utilises by Buddhists (amongst others) to develop
| stable attention and focus (sans the spirituality of higher
| "levels" in meditation).
|
| The book "The Mind Illuminated" goes into great detail about
| this
| [deleted]
| ludwigindahouse wrote:
| Finnucane wrote:
| I remember hearing people say things like "it's not about
| profits, it's about eyeballs," and thinking, you can't pay the
| rent with eyeballs.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Facebook and Instagram showed that eyeballs can be very
| lucrative . The old web 1.0 sites simply didn't have good ways
| to monetize it , unlike today. Mobile advertising didn't exist,
| neither did tracking and big data.
| rmah wrote:
| This may sound like a tautology, but those eyeballs were only
| "lucrative" because they could be converted to money. As the
| person you were responding to implied.
| danenania wrote:
| I think that was always the plan. Eyeballs in the short
| term, profits in the long term.
| amelius wrote:
| I bet even the founders of Google didn't even know at first how
| much eyeballs are worth.
| sophacles wrote:
| This is why a good physics education is important... Under
| certain conditions the standard model includes several
| spontaneous transformations from eyeballs -> cash. The trick is
| getting a critical mass of eyeballs for the conversions to be
| frequent enough to pay the bills.
| wishfish wrote:
| I hope an RPG designer read your joke. I'd love to see a
| "transmute eyeballs to gold" alchemical recipe show up. Would
| be hilarious. Especially in an MMORPG where it's crucial to
| their bottom line to keep players' attention for as long as
| possible.
| mistermann wrote:
| I think you mean metaphysics?
| toxicFork wrote:
| When you have enough eyeballs they will collapse into a
| plasma state from their own mass and then you can harvest
| that into work or electricity then sell that for money
| klyrs wrote:
| obligatory https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/
| mistermann wrote:
| How to invoke unseriousness in humans: mention
| metaphysics.
| xdavidliu wrote:
| > the standard model
|
| I do not think it means what you think it means.
| sophacles wrote:
| I'm talking about literal eyeballs transmuting to cash as
| if it's the result of particle physics. I don't think you
| should read anything more than "its a joke" into my
| comment.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| I remember people talking about internal rivalries at IBM and
| Microsoft over user's eyeballs. Every app wants to be the main
| productivity app., king of the eyeballs!
| imtringued wrote:
| Those who are wrong about money will be wrong about everything
| else.
| openfuture wrote:
| Doubt. Attention is definitely important but as I keep saying;
| the value of your contribution is not based in opportunity cost
| but rather the dependency structure. If many people are providing
| you with attention then that is making you an important
| dependency in some sense but someone who maintains critical
| infrastructure is also worth alot, even if no one pays attention.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Whenever I see sentiments like this, or when I hear people with
| comfortable jobs in the tech industry talk about how money is
| imaginary, etc., it just comes across as being detached from
| reality to me.
|
| It's easy to fall into this trap when money is abstracted away to
| being just a number you see on your smartphone, but money is very
| real, and if you don't have it, you can't pay rent or for heat in
| winter.
| swayvil wrote:
| Money is basically software. Meaningless without a machine to
| run it.
| salty_biscuits wrote:
| I think the nuance is that money is made up, not that it is
| imaginary. It is an abstraction that lets you live in a society
| that will let people be cold and hungry without feeling too bad
| about it.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Money is politics by other means. It's real to the extent that
| a certain kind of politics is real.
|
| If you don't have enough to pay your bills it's not because
| there isn't enough energy for you to heat your home. It's
| because making sure you can heat your home /pay rent/eat isn't
| a priority for the people with the political power to make
| those decisions.
| doubled112 wrote:
| Coming at this another way, money is only valuable because
| society and the world says it has value.
|
| Money doesn't do anything on its own. If I'm cold in the middle
| of nowhere, a pack of matches and block of wood have value to
| me at that moment, but my Canada plastic money doesn't even
| make good kindling.
|
| If the world seriously falls apart, what are your dollars
| worth?
| duncan-donuts wrote:
| This is nonsense. Money is very real because it's an
| abstraction for materials, goods, services, etc. If
| governments fail and currencies collapse yeah sure that money
| can't do anything for you, but idk about you but my USD is
| good just about anywhere and it does a lot for me.
|
| You might make arguments that when the world falls apart
| you'll be glad you outsmarted us by buying gold or some other
| thing society decided has value. But if the world falls apart
| I wouldn't bet on gold being the best thing to trade with.
| I'd rather have a stockpile of medicine, ammunition,
| livestock, and a seed bank. Those things are hard to store
| until you need them for an apocalypse. I can assure you that
| if you tried to give me gold for ammunition in this scenario
| you'd be leaving with gold.
|
| You could also argue that gold/silver would and is a good
| currency abstraction and I'd agree with you. In the absurd
| scenario that the world falls apart I wouldn't count on
| merchants coming around that actually want gold/silver. So
| many useful things become useless in an end of the world
| scenario that it's not worth worrying about.
| xwdv wrote:
| If the world falls apart your net worth will be composed
| only of things you can actually protect and defend, because
| everything else will just be taken away from you. The rule
| of law isn't around to save you.
|
| But that's why if the world falls apart, the most valuable
| resource will be attention. If you have a lot of true
| followers, and they believe you know what you're doing and
| that life could be better if they follow you rather than go
| it alone, then you will have many people to protect you and
| bring you resources, and in this way you can build your
| dominion in the post apocalyptic world.
|
| If you're a true prepper, you should be hoarding influence
| and attention. This will give you the best life possible at
| the end of the world.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _This is nonsense. Money is very real because it's an
| abstraction for materials, goods, services, etc._
|
| Abstractions are by definition not real.
|
| What's real about the money is the political and legal
| power (enforced by actual people) that allows you to
| exchange it with goods.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Right as I was reading this title on the front page, I got an
| amazon prime video push notification popup (that I don't recall
| permitting before) to tell me about an upcoming sports event I
| could watch live.
| siavosh wrote:
| If anyone has a Buddhist bent, attention is somewhat synonymous
| (I think) with consciousness. So there are some profound
| implications.
| ElfinTrousers wrote:
| It was Wired magazine in 1997. I think it's safe to assume that
| most or all of them had a Buddhist bent, or at least affected
| one.
| remir wrote:
| Ultimately, it is more about influence than attention itself.
|
| You can see how some thoughts and new expressions spread like
| viruses nowadays. The term "Quiet quitting" being one recent
| example as it seems like every LinkedIn influencer and OpEd are
| talking about this thing as it's widespread and the "new
| reality".
| klabb3 wrote:
| Influence is just the potential energy of attention.
| threads2 wrote:
| is the internet bad for me? should I just quit it? kind of
| sounds like "intrusive thought"
| airstrike wrote:
| > You can see how some thoughts and new expressions spread like
| viruses nowadays. The term "Quiet quitting" being one recent
| example as it seems like every LinkedIn influencer and OpEd are
| talking about this thing as it's widespread and the "new
| reality".
|
| Ah, the OG definition of meme
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| One way you could characterize our current information
| environment is as an Eden for memes like this. There are few
| predators, and the necessities of life are abundant.
| wslh wrote:
| It depends... if you are poor or not. Just to give a gross
| grouping.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| The right kind of attention can lift people out of
| homelessness, e.g.
| https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/04/23/ted-golden-vo...
|
| One could argue homelessness remains a growing problem because
| it does not receive sufficient attention.
| wslh wrote:
| Seems like you can replace attention with zillions of
| placeholders like: the same right kind of intelligence can
| lift people out of homelessness.
| cwmoore wrote:
| Isn't that datapoint an exception that proves the rule? I
| note that a homeless person receiving acclaim and the issue
| of homelessness receiving attention are orders apart.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| If that is the case, HN definitely takes a relatively big chunk
| in my case.
| kloch wrote:
| > Almost everyone will have a personal Web site.
|
| At first it seems like the author got this prediction horribly
| wrong, except almost everyone does have one or more social media
| accounts which is the modern equivalent.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| I'm imagining a future where we got the former and it is such a
| cooler (and more harmonious) future.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-26 23:00 UTC)