Lose mobility for a few weeks or months, like breaking both legs (or just try wheelchair access) and see how much of even the paved first world is inaccessible.
Nevermind less refined places like well-maintained hiking trails.
And you can forget about actual trail-blazing.
Then appreciate just how flexible and robust animal and human mobility really is!
This blind faith in “the market” is charming, but the market is just the outcome of enforceable ground rules (national, international) followed then by price/value.
Ohh that's interesting. Never heard that quote from him I don't think. I like Alan Moore's perspective on life. Seems like he had an interest more in the ancient arts, but more from an intellectual perspective.. Thanks for the reminder. I need to look at his behind the scenes stuff. I remember watching a documentary on the Watchmen (2009 film) DVD when I was a kid. Maybe it was in that. Looks like he is doing short courses this days [0]
I think it would be more accurate to say, that technology went in the wrong direction and the further we go down our current path, the more people realize this.
So some folks have decided to go back to something they knew worked, and the supply and demand sides are both growing big enough to run a viable business off of.
I disagree. The nostalgia here isn’t a pushback on the technology, but against a social belief that proved flawed and perhaps a yearning for the
times when things appeared to be on the up.
The 1990s to aughties were highly optimistic times. Things like LGBT rights would’ve struggled in any other decades,
but we really believed that open borders and accessible communication would break down barriers; and for a time it look liked it would.
Even weirdoes like
myself, who had serious personal reservations about enabling China or Russia began to have doubts.
Fast forward to now: Technology is one very easy way to push back against those that benefit in the current economic and political outcome. And entire generations thinking they’re “cooked”.
Edit: I wonder how many HN under 40 even understand the term “fast-forward”.
I think you went for a socio-political angle, I was talking more about stuff in the tech domain.
Back in the mid 2000s, as a teen, I had a PSP, which was supported by the biggest studios and had amazing games - no equivalent device exists today (the steam deck and switch are much bulkier). Likewise, I had a Nokia smartphone that ran Symbian, and could do the vast majority of stuff my current iPhone does. It had a music player, a camera that was decent for the time, it could connect to various chat services etc. It also had nice physical buttons.
If you look at operating systems, both Windows and Mac UX hardly changed.
Since then we had a huge computing revolution, with exponentially increasing compute and a huge array of tools, but my personal opinion, is that a ton of things introduced in tech since the mid 2000s, was either not super impactful, flawed in some way, or ignored eventually. Some geniunely impactful and good stuff, simply disappeared (like Flash)
This is in stark contrast to the development that took place from the mid 80s to mid 2000s.
Considering nobody thought 'this is as far as we would get' cca 2005, I think we made some blunders, which I think are worth reflecting on, and possibly correcting.
For sure, we made and doubled down on tech blunders.
I still use cash or credit cards, refuse to use online/direct bill pay, insist on paper bills, and in general avoid consolidation. Low tech payment and paper trails.
It’s a real pain in the ass (and the nagging…), until things go very wrong; then redundancy or separation is a godsend.
How? I'm not particularly attached to it, but it seems to continue to be a commonly used expression and this is the first time I've seen someone raise an objection to its use.
Because the phrase and mindset leads to the wrong lessons and actions.
In aviation, there is little room for error. It’s also the case that resources and time are limited. So there are multiple constraints.
We both agree that Boeing is the big problem. I’d also say its a problem of the FAA and the aviation industry.
But UPS? Why would they be taking action “out of an abundance of caution”?
The worst you can say for UPS is they could have sought a second opinion out of “an abundance of caution”, and recommendations of next actions and how.
Keep in mind UPS core competency isn’t aerospace and aeronautical engineering.
Would they even be able to assess the risk of changing said bearings en masse?
The actual lesson here is that most of the advisories and self-certifying from Boeing over the past 30 years need to be reconsidered; most likely redone, by independent third parties and also an FAA with a mandate to be fully independent.
What’s pleasant to see is that the take-down and opinion piece is coming from the conservative side.
reply