[HN Gopher] The Matt Curve (2019)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Matt Curve (2019)
        
       Author : surprisetalk
       Score  : 37 points
       Date   : 2023-06-19 15:05 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (matt.sh)
 (TXT) w3m dump (matt.sh)
        
       | marcosdumay wrote:
       | Confuses quantity with quality, focus on irrelevant details, and
       | the always present unwarranted certainty.
       | 
       | The article has a point. It's a well known one, but it doesn't
       | hurt to repeat it every once in a while. But the entire article
       | detracts from the point, confuses the discourse, and inflames
       | people on useless and harmful directions.
       | 
       | I'd say it's a bad article. The point is good, but this is not
       | enough.
        
       | valyagolev wrote:
       | This reads like a parody of the argument, especially with the
       | pictures. Curve good, another curve bad
        
       | truculent wrote:
       | The Matt Curve is not dissimilar to Ivan Illich's concept of "two
       | watersheds" for a given technology:
       | 
       | The first threshold occurs when a tool (be it something
       | straightforwardly technological like the car, or institutional
       | like formal education or professional healthcare) surpasses the
       | costs required to maintain or use it. At this point, the tool is
       | a net benefit to people.
       | 
       | However, "When a tool-based activity exceeds a threshold defined
       | by the ad hoc scale, it first turns against its end, then
       | threatens to destroy the entire social body... Reaching a certain
       | threshold, the tool, from servant, becomes despot."[1]
       | 
       | For example, the car goes from something that enables individual
       | freedom, to a basic necessity in a car-dependent society. At this
       | point, the technology has a "radical monopoly"[2], and those
       | without access to it are excluded or no longer able to fully
       | participate in society.
       | 
       | Perhaps this maps to Matt's distinction of "personal" and
       | "social" technology. Supposedly Illich's work was very
       | influential on the early development of personal computers.
       | 
       | So what to do about this?
       | 
       | Illich proposed a reorientation towards "conviviality":
       | 
       | > People need not only to obtain things, they need above all the
       | freedom to make things among which they can live, to give shape
       | to them according to their own tastes, and to put them to use in
       | caring for and about others. Prisoners in rich countries often
       | have access to more things and services than members of their
       | families, but they have no say in how things are to be made and
       | cannot decide what to do with them. Their punishment consists in
       | being deprived of what I shall call "conviviality." They are
       | degraded to the status of mere consumers.
       | 
       | > I choose the term "conviviality" to designate the opposite of
       | industrial productivity. I intend it to mean autonomous and
       | creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of
       | persons with their environment; and this in contrast with the
       | conditioned response of persons to the demands made upon them by
       | others, and by a man-made environment. I consider conviviality to
       | be individual freedom realized in personal interdependence and,
       | as such, an intrinsic ethical value. I believe that, in any
       | society, as conviviality is reduced below a certain level, no
       | amount of industrial productivity can effectively satisfy the
       | needs it creates among society's members.[1]
       | 
       | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tools_for_Conviviality
       | 
       | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_monopoly
        
       | raydiatian wrote:
       | Matt.sh bad, Apple good
        
       | zdw wrote:
       | There are some definite legitimate complaints about overreach of
       | technology and misapplication that causes societal problems, but
       | also it seems intertwined with the "grumpy old man who thinks
       | these newfangled changes are bad".
       | 
       | Speaking to the second, I think everyone has their own Matt Curve
       | on specific things - given the Apple example, IMO the start of
       | the "good" peak was 2005 - MacOS 10.4, and kept getting better
       | through 2011, until the release of 10.7, which started pulling
       | things from iOS (contacts and calendar suck now, but at least
       | they have woodgrain?) and a general dumbing down of the platform.
       | They also started pulling features and generally slowly killing
       | their Server platform, which was a compelling offering at the
       | time. But the iPhone money printing machine changed the company,
       | and in ways that were unfortunate for Mac users for a decade or
       | more.
        
         | BizarroLand wrote:
         | It's funny because the grumpy old man is right, absolutely
         | through and through, but because they're alone people ignore
         | them.
        
       | smitty1e wrote:
       | My chief grief with all of this is the vertical axis.
       | 
       | "Society" asserts a monolithic aggregation of humanity that just
       | isn't in view, sorry.
        
       | Arainach wrote:
       | Such a weird article. I like the premise of some technologies
       | becoming detrimental over time as they are more adopted, and
       | there are a number of obvious examples that could be talked
       | about:
       | 
       | * Surveillance cameras and storage for footage becoming so cheap
       | as to be everywhere
       | 
       | * Facial recognition, license plate recognition, etc. becoming
       | available, especially when paired with the above (even
       | governments couldn't pay humans to watch all the cameras all the
       | time)
       | 
       | * Social Media
       | 
       | * Cell phones and the expectation of being always available
       | 
       | Etc. Etc. Etc.
       | 
       | .....and then the author chooses to focus on Apple UI?
        
         | gumby wrote:
         | > I like the premise of some technologies becoming detrimental
         | over time as they are more adopted
         | 
         | "It's the dose that makes the poison"
        
       | romusha wrote:
       | Dumbest stuff I've read this month
        
         | JackFr wrote:
         | It's a lot of words to complain about iTunes.
        
       | Mattasher wrote:
       | The problem with rolling back tech use is that it's very hard to
       | do incrementally in an individual person's life, without giving
       | up a lot, and losses tend to sting way more than equivalent gains
       | make us happy. So sure, I can do regular tech sabbaths, or spend
       | time on true vacation, and that helps my sanity. But every time I
       | try and do something like remove email from my phone (and I
       | _hate_ having email on my phone), something comes up where I don
       | 't have my computer and I'd really like to send an email, or
       | someone uses email instead of a text for something time
       | sensitive, and I end up re-installing it.
       | 
       | I really wish there were intentional low-tech communities besides
       | the Amish. I would happy reduce my tech use by 9/10ths if that
       | lifestyle was supported by the people around me.
        
       | axus wrote:
       | I don't understand how Apple of 2023 is bad for society as a
       | whole; how is the world better without them as they currently
       | are?
        
       | joeatwork wrote:
       | You should read this if you're a programmer or someone who makes
       | things. It's fun and silly, but also makes an important point -
       | the stuff you build is giving _somebody_ power, and if that
       | somebody isn't some form of everybody, then maybe you're not
       | doing more good than harm.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-20 23:02 UTC)