I agree whole-heatedly. Every dumb kid thinks he has to be noisier than the next, whether it's a shitty dropped Honda civic covered in primer, a dumbshit F-350 with dumb tires sticking out past the body, or a motorcycle with some ignoramus on it wearing a bandana with a skull over his face, like that makes him tough. It's like everyone has to flex because they think it makes them cool, but really the rest of us are saying "oh look, another dumbass". Yet, you're right, the cops don't seem to care. I don't get it. It's like even they think they have something better to do, and noise complaints are too beneath them to care. I've talked to a number of cops about this, and they have told me they won't enforce these laws unless they are looking for an excuse to pull someone over for something more significant (to them).
This is nonsense, and typical layman logic when it comes to matters involving abandoned property and theft when on another premises. It is not even remotely inline with reality. In almost any jurisdiction in the US, one has legal recourse when someone takes their money or property. Whether it's in the other's control or not, it's still just as equally defined as theft.
If property is the subject of a reasonable dispute-- e.g. whether a contractual term applies-- whomever is holding the property has the upper hand. Especially if the amount of property/money is small compared to the probable cost of litigation and especially so if one is unlikely to recover legal fees.
It's not completely nonsense, but maybe it kind of dances around the point. 99% of the time people don't have any legal access whatsoever because it's much too costly. Practically, people only have legal protection in catastrophic scenarios, where they have no choice but to pay exorbitant fees. So good luck getting your property back in 9/10 cases.
You are right about phones. I saw this a lot over the past years myself. I started in hardware back in the 80's when it was all big components. Then, with smartphones, it became clear that most little pocket gadgets of the 90's were obsolete. However, doesn't someone still need to make the phones and computers of tomorrow? Aren't those people going to be paid well since there will be fewer of them? I'm not saying it's not true, it just seems odd that software would be compensated so much better than hardware. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Is this really true right now? I have been in hardware before, and found I was curious to try what else was out there, so I got into a business role. Turned out, that sucks worse in some ways, so I had been considering trying to transition back. Barring the challenges with this plan, I saw that hardware at least seemed to be free of the constant churn that seems inherent in software, meaning new languages every 3 years, constant industry change, and the age perception issue, where you aren't seen as valuable after so many years unless you're a superstar.
I had no idea, however, that software paid so much better. Is this really true in general, across the board, or do you mean only for select areas?
Sideline topic: Yeah, I can't handle these types of crowds, even though I really need to find a co-founder. I can't go to these specifically because of all the talking of sh__ that goes on. I'm afraid many people in the startup scene may think they will be the next best CEO in the world, so they go to these events and typically spend the entire time droning on with enough business/tech-laced hot air you could fill a balloon with it big enough to have saved the Titanic from sinking. But, when it comes to rolling up sleeves and getting things done...well...crickets.
Finally, we're starting to see through the mess that Facebook is causing. It seems so innocuous and fun at first, but it takes years until we look back and realize exactly what you're saying now. I remember having hours of conversation with friends prior to Facebook via the phone. Now, it's like it's expected that I'll "just know" what my friends are doing (after all, they took the time to post it, so they almost take it as a form of offense if I don't know what they're up to. "What? You didn't see my post about my gardening project?").
I really hope our generation figures out how to get out of this quagmire somehow. I fear, however, that just as innocently as we started this project now known and accepted as "social media", we will be too far down the rabbit hole to reverse course, let alone even recognize what we've done to our true relationships with internet communication.
I really hope our generation figures out how to get out of this quagmire somehow." What is one thing we could do the reinvent the Social Network concept?
Better algorithms just aren't cutting it. What will?
Make things harder rather than easier.
I mean, I do not want 5-line bot scripts slurping up my associations. I do not want it to be easy for Joe Blow to learn what book I last read or what foods I like. I do not want to be fodder for every Social Media expert.
Having some sort of speed bumps might help filter out the frictionless-friends from the real friends.
Facebook had that initially, to some extent, by requiring a school. Now they're icing the roads.
I don't have a clear idea on this other than a gut feeling that making some things at least slightly troublesome might go a long way to helping evolve real social networks.
Social media "experts" need better ways to spend their time and starting at schools with .edu addresses will help to build concentrated user bases. So, THAT won't be a problem.
Based on feedback, maybe FB's problem is simply that it's no longer theFaceBook. Its not exclusive, hardly worth my time and the structure is vastly overbuilt for what its meant to be: a people directory.
