[HN Gopher] Things we didn't know about ourselves
___________________________________________________________________
Things we didn't know about ourselves
Author : kaycebasques
Score : 55 points
Date : 2024-02-14 17:09 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (kk.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (kk.org)
| Ensorceled wrote:
| My iPhone at a comfortable viewing distance is about equivalent
| to my 42" monitor at 8 feet. Details will change depending upon
| the size of your phone, but that's better than a lot of people's
| TV setup.
| ryandamm wrote:
| 42" at 8' is smaller than a typical TV setup in the US, I
| think? So his point still stands in strict size terms.
|
| But also, the experience is watching something close up is
| qualitatively different -- yes, focus and accommodation, but
| also relative motions if it's handheld, and just the perception
| of size. (Same FOV, but you "know" it's small and close rather
| than big and farther away.)
|
| I think Kevin Kelley's larger point is that our needs are
| either more plastic than we thought or there are wrinkles in
| the sorts of things we're willing to accept, and that's sort of
| interesting and fun to think about.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > 42" at 8' is smaller than a typical TV setup in the US, I
| think? So his point still stands in strict size terms.
|
| I'm guessing that, in general, the people who are using their
| phones as TVs are not the ones with 42" 4K televisions and a
| 8' living room or, if they are, they're kids getting the
| privacy to watch what they want in their own rooms.
| favourable wrote:
| I think it was Aral Balkan who said we're like cyborgs now with
| our smartphones. I remember him saying that in a talk, and the
| idea resonated with me. The key difference is that it's not a
| chip in our brain, but a device we hold and treat like a
| pacifier. I think we need a new term for smartphones though. I
| don't know the stats, but who makes plain telephone calls anymore
| when we have WhatsApp etc? A smartphone is really just a small
| tablet that happens to have a baseband (that people rarely use
| apart from cellular Internet).
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is shocking how fast we've become totally dependent on
| smartphones. I remember getting lost on my college campus,
| having to print out maps and stuff. And I'm not really _that_
| old.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| If you'd had no idea what a smart phone was but were
| observing human behaviour from afar, then we would seem
| freakishly coordinated, as-if we had telepathy or a hive
| mind.
|
| Imagine watching from space as drivers detour around an
| accident ahead almost like they had foreknowledge of
| conditions they can't have seen yet...
| TwoCent wrote:
| They are kind of like pacifiers for adults, aren't they? The
| term "fondleslab" captures that; I believe I first read that
| moniker years ago in some article on the Register.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > who makes plain telephone calls anymore when we have WhatsApp
| etc?
|
| Um... I do? And almost everyone I know?
| velcrovan wrote:
| This is something I think we as a society have not fully grappled
| with:
|
| > "I am pretty sure that we did not know that we humans much
| prefer personal attention to personal privacy. Until we invented
| the technology of social media, we thought we naturally favored
| privacy over attention, but we were also wrong about that. We
| found out that when given a choice people prefer to reveal
| themselves to get personal attention rather than the obscurity of
| privacy."
|
| I've been interested to read some contrarian thinking by
| Venkatesh Rao (Against Waldenponding
| <https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding>) and
| others, about the ways this species-wide preference could/does
| benefit us, and how we might work with it rather than try to
| fight it.
| glitchc wrote:
| I think it's easy to misread the data in this case. People fall
| into two camps, those who draw attention to themselves and
| those who prefer not to. The latter camp is under-represented
| online precisely because representation would mean drawing
| attention to themselves. So, counting just the online denizens
| introduces significant bias in the data.
| smeej wrote:
| > A kind of selfish free-riding/tragedy of the commons: not
| learning to handle your share of the increased attention-
| management load required to keep the Global Social Computer in
| the Cloud (GSCITC) running effectively.
|
| It's much more sinister than that. In what I consider my best
| moments, I want to destroy the damn thing.
| velcrovan wrote:
| You want to destroy...the Global Social Computer in the
| Cloud?
|
| If I understand you correctly, then just to clarify: the
| author disagrees with you, and considers you to be the
| selfish free-rider in that sentence.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| This KK (Kevin Kelley) guy seems super cool. I just browsed the
| rest of the site. Turns out he wrote that "New Rules For The New
| Economy" book back in the 90s. Pretty much every post on The
| Technium that I've read has been insightful. He's even got a
| section of the site just dedicated to showcasing how people
| "reappropriate" i.e. actually use technology:
| https://kk.org/streetuse/
| georgebcrawford wrote:
| He's a pretty prolific writer. He also started Wired, maybe has
| a podcast too? At the least he has been a guest on what seems
| like a million of them. Just running out the door so I can't
| fact check myself sorry. Thought you might like some factoids
| though. Have a swell day!
| karaterobot wrote:
| He's also one of the founders of Wired, and all of his books
| are at least intriguing, if not always persuasive (to me). And
| his long-running Cool Tools blog is worth reading as well.
| dannyobrien wrote:
| I think you might enjoy his 90s book Out of Control:
| https://kk.org/books/out-of-control/
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Also involved with the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Catalog back in the
| day...
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Hmmmm...
|
| I don't think the invention of social media shows people prefer
| attention to privacy. This is a false dichotomy. Privacy doesn't
| mean not getting attention, it means not having aspects of your
| life that you want to keep private revealed.
| ambicapter wrote:
| Yeah, how is he counting all the people who aren't exposing
| themselves for attention over privacy? Seems like he's looking
| for his keys under the streetlight.
|
| Maybe what this tell us is that even deep thinkers aren't great
| at grappling with large numbers.
|
| edit: Not to mention a lot of social media presence is 100%
| performance. It's not really an invasion of privacy, as it has
| very little to do with the private life of the creator.
| alexpotato wrote:
| One thing I find surprising about the whole Apple Vision
| phenomenon:
|
| There has been a ton of hype around "you can work in VR and it
| feels like a real place" and "you can have tons of screens!".
|
| But that being said, the below article about using Meta Oculus VR
| goggles to "work from space" came out over TWO years ago:
| https://medium.com/immersedteam/working-from-orbit-39bf95a6d...
|
| Plus, that software even works on Linux!
|
| What is going on now that it seems like the rest of the world
| suddenly discovered a feature of the previous generation VR
| goggles?
|
| Is it just "because Apple"?
|
| Is it better marketing? (e.g. are more influencers involved)
|
| I would be curious to hear HN's take on this.
| Supermancho wrote:
| The Apple Vision is 3.5k - way too much, but I'm watching the
| videos of it. I can see how it's showing me the future.
|
| I never saw a useful demo of virtual fixed screens in real 3d
| space, from Oculus. ie Both fixed in relation to my head
| position and fixed in the space of other rooms, with realtime
| content...I saw VR games from the Oculus marketing. I don't
| care about that (although I have coworkers who do).
|
| More monitors of arbitrary size help me as I've gotten older.
| Year ago, I worked in an office, instead of at home. Remote-
| first attitudes have shifted how I work and are able to
| conceptualize things I want to get done.
|
| The Oculus has weird hand grippers. I don't want to carry
| those. Give me my mouse and keyboard for interaction and build
| for that.
|
| I noticed because it was marketed better and at the right time
| for my age group.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| The avg consumer doesn't even know what Linux is.
|
| The avg consumer distrusts Facebook more than Apple.
|
| So yes, the most popular tech company + marketing.
| sophacles wrote:
| > What is going on now that it seems like the rest of the world
| suddenly discovered a feature of the previous generation VR
| goggles?
|
| > Is it just "because Apple"?
|
| To some extent yes - Jobs built a company that was less about
| innovation and more about polishing and packaging existing tech
| for the masses. This isn't bad - Apple has made some great
| stuff, and they have innovated some, but a lot of the
| innovation is in UX not tech.
|
| Things apple "invented" that had been around for a while:
|
| * the mouse
|
| * the GUI
|
| * MP3 players
|
| * the smart phone
|
| * the tablet
|
| * virtual desktops
|
| * video calls
|
| And plenty more I've since forgotten. We used to joke about
| Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field in reference to this
| phenomenon.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Hard disagree with mouse, GUI, virtual desktops and video
| calls.
|
| The mouse hasn't changed in 40 years.
|
| Windows 3.1's GUI beat the pants off Apple's.
|
| Virtual desktops - maybe, but I still don't know anyone who
| uses this and not really sure most people know it exists.
|
| Video calls - No idea what Apple has to do with this space at
| all unless you mean FaceTime? I don't think that was really a
| game changer.
| sophacles wrote:
| Hence me saying: apple "invented" (rather than saying apple
| invented). People credit apple with inventing all those
| things. They invented none of them.
|
| Also worth noting - the mouse was invented over 50 years
| ago and has basically been the same since, the biggest
| change was consumer devices moving from a ball to a laser.
| 41 years ago was when apple first released a product with a
| mouse. From the wikipedia page on the mouse:
|
| > However, the mouse remained relatively obscure until the
| appearance of the Macintosh 128K (which included an updated
| version of the single-button[54] Lisa Mouse) in 1984
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Windows 3.1's GUI beat the pants off Apple's.
|
| It's been a really long time since I used Windows 3.1 or
| System 7, but I'm not seeing it; in what way was Windows
| better?
| johncalvinyoung wrote:
| oh I looked into that. Conclusion at the time was resolution
| was far too low to compete with my 27" 4k display on my desk.
| (I'd _love_ to be able to travel and work remotely without
| lugging my big display, but my productivity takes a blow
| restricted to just my laptop display).
|
| From what I'm reading about the Apple Vision Pro, it's not
| there yet either.
| jolmg wrote:
| > What is going on now that it seems like the rest of the world
| suddenly discovered a feature of the previous generation VR
| goggles? Is it just "because Apple"? Is it better marketing?
|
| It takes more attention to notice that you can combine a niche
| gaming device with a random 3rd party application to do work in
| VR, than the attention it takes to notice that Apple did a
| thing. Everyone, even people that aren't typically Apple
| consumers, would notice that Apple released a new product.
|
| It sorta reminds me of the PS3. It came out at the same time as
| Blu-ray players and was capable of playing Blu-ray movies as a
| bonus feature. While the PS3 cost $600, the Blu-ray players
| cost $1,000+, and people still purchased the players. For
| people that were looking for a device to play movie discs, it
| took too much attention to notice that a gaming device offers
| that and much more for much less.
| breischl wrote:
| I haven't followed the AV much, but I did mess around with
| using Oculus for work a fair amount, including trying that app
| and others. tl;dr, it's not super great.
|
| A few random reasons:
|
| - The Oculus goggles become uncomfortable and sweaty fairly
| quickly
|
| - They use Fresnel lenses and (I _think_...) foveated
| rendering, which means you really only get sharp view straight
| in front of you. Not where your eyes are looking, where your
| head is pointing. So looking at the other screen, or even
| scanning text, means moving your head.
|
| - The awareness of your surroundings is basically zero so it's
| easy to "lose" your mouse. Or, in my case I was using a
| wireless keyboard, and I could misplace it. There is a
| passthrough mode, but the resolution is garbage and it's
| annoying to get in and out of (in theory you can tap the
| headset, in practice it works maybe 50% of the time)
|
| Probably some other stuff I'm forgetting...
|
| Anyway, all that said I think there's potential that AV could
| do it significantly better. No idea if they actually did do it
| better, though.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >The fact that everyone alive on our planet is now connected
| electronically is not a surprise.
|
| A shockingly inaccurate statement right from the start. I stopped
| reading after this sentence.
| SamBam wrote:
| It's not shockingly inaccurate. It's not quite literally true
| -- of course there are some people who are not connected -- but
| it's very close to being true. Even in places of extreme
| poverty, in extremely underprivileged or remote areas, most
| people have access to a cellphone, even if they may not own it
| themselves. Indeed, in many parts of the developing world, even
| in extreme poverty, a cellphone is often the number one way
| people pay for goods.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| > but it's very close to being true.
|
| [citation needed]
|
| I brought my own.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Digital_divide
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
| SamBam wrote:
| Is there a citation there that's less than a decade old? In
| the Digital Divide section in the first link, there was one
| citation from 2015, but most citations were 2007-2011...
| Really not relevant to the discussion.
|
| Also, the meaning of "unconnected" varies widely. Many of
| the citation in the second link aren't referring to basic
| cell phones. E.g., the 2017 (which, again, is seven years
| old) Wireless Broadband Alliance paper defines unconnected
| as "an unconnected individual was defined as an individual
| who does not have access to or cannot afford broadband
| connectivity."
|
| The huge proportion of the population that I know in, say,
| Kenya, who use WhatsApp and use cell phones to pay for
| goods, do not have broadband. But the quote in question was
| "connected electronically." These people are definitely
| connected electronically.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment/ove
| rvi....
| SamBam wrote:
| That page cites ITU [1], and the ITU page doesn't cite
| their sources at all. It may be their own numbers, but I
| don't see any link to a real study or methodology.
|
| They also don't define connectivity, but the section is
| titled "connectivity/broadband" so I assume that, again,
| they're only referring to broadband connectivity.
|
| 1. https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR-2023-09-12
| -unive...
| politelemon wrote:
| It is inaccurate, the degree to which it is inaccurate does
| not really need debating if the opening statement of the post
| calls it a fact.
|
| And no, there are many remote areas where this is still
| untrue, many are still disconnected from what we are talking
| about.
|
| It is very odd that this point is actually being argued.
| danboarder wrote:
| "I am pretty sure that we did not know that we humans much prefer
| personal attention to personal privacy."
|
| I think it's possible that many people want both, each in
| different areas of life. It's not necessarily an either/or.
| notresidenter wrote:
| It's an interesting point of view, working backwards the "chain
| of causality" instead of the usual "technology changes us",
| saying that "technology makes us discover new things about
| ourselves", i.e. we didn't change, it was always there. It's
| unclear to me which one is the more correct or to what extent
| both would be correct.
| csours wrote:
| What if humans had chromatophores like cephalopods?
|
| Body language has been around for a good long time
|
| Detailed spoken language has been around for a less long time
|
| If we had chromatophores what would language be like?
|
| We train children to speak, and speech is very important. Some
| people learn to draw, paint, etc.
|
| We train children to read and write, and convert written words to
| speech.
|
| ---
|
| I apologize if my words are not clear. I have to unfocus my mind
| a little bit to see my point myself.
|
| Being able to record and send pictures and video in near real
| time is very new to humanity.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Ambiguous language is important in dating and politics and
| other endeavours. Would cromatophore-communicating species use
| textures at different scales to appear as if they were saying
| one thing to others far away, but actually say a second thing
| to those who were nearby?
| Terr_ wrote:
| Cuttlefish already do that! Well, not at different
| _distances_ , but they can send conflicting messages with
| different sides of their body.
|
| In particular, scientists have observed male cuttlefish
| displaying "I'm a male, let's mate" signals at a female,
| while simultaneously sending a false "I'm a female, court me"
| coloration on the opposite side to distract a rival.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Hey baby, I'm soooo gotta light? /\
| / drunk! \--yeyi---/
| /||\
| biancaregulski wrote:
| > I am pretty sure that we did not know that we humans much
| prefer personal attention to personal privacy. Until we invented
| the technology of social media, we thought we naturally favored
| privacy over attention, but we were also wrong about that.
|
| I don't know that the classical assumption was that people
| preferred privacy as a whole. People who lived as hermits have
| generally been seen as eccentric and abnormal, though sometimes
| admirable.
|
| But with the internet pushing the possibility of living a private
| life to its extremes, the unsuitability of it for most people
| becomes more obvious.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| As I understand it, cultures that were poor enough that animals
| and people all lived together (and in cold climates, shared
| heat) in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longhouse structures had
| almost no privacy (hence the popularity of "rolls in the hay"
| in english or "going for a walk" in russian?) and the people
| who build later structures seem to have nearly universally
| preferred individual rooms, with open-dormitory-style
| arrangements reserved for those who had little choice:
| military, hospitals, etc.
| chasil wrote:
| "But the smartphone -- a small pocketable screen - was not at all
| expected. It was a complete surprise because no one thought it
| would be possible to engage with such a tiny screen. It was a
| shock to everyone (including me) that a screen smaller than my
| palm would be enough to watch a movie, or read a book, or get
| your news."
|
| Fictional depictions of a tablet form factor appear to go back to
| Asimov's original Foundation in 1951.
|
| "Isaac Asimov described a Calculator Pad in his novel Foundation
| (1951); Stanislaw Lem described the Opton in his novel Return
| from the Stars (1961)."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer#History
| browningstreet wrote:
| His site reminds me of the thing I occasionally mention to
| restaurant managers: "Your customers probably can't make out the
| text size on your menus."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-14 23:01 UTC)