It might be of some interest to cultural historians in the future. But I think it makes more sense to take sample+curated data. But in any case if we can afford it, eh why not.
We don't know now what to curate for the future. We should preserve as much of everything we can - we don't know what will be important in 50, or 500 years.
Case in point: retrocomputing is my hobby. I buy, restore, preserve, and use old computers. Most of them are home computers, because business computers go directly from the office to the recycling facility or the landfill. Unless someone deliberately preserved, say, a Burroughs B-25 desktop, or the similar from Data General, they are gone.
My son is into retrocomputing, mostly using older hardware I have from when I was younger, and we have a stack of old compaq desktops where you can't access the bios because it requires a specific floppy that is nearly impossible to find online. This is 486/pentium era stuff, the older stuff is even harder to find.
I've been looking for a DEC terminal with Sixel, Tektronix and ReGIS graphics for a while, with zero success. They weren't rare at all - they were a massive success, and, yet, it seems almost all ended up in a recycling facility or an e-waste dumpster. Many other terminals emulated them and expanded on their feature set.
Yes and, part of it is advertising visually tormenting us. They throw uber catchy colorful banners of stuff we're often not interested in the slightest, doing everything to get our attention. Also, websites featuring advertisement are encouraged to have more muted tones so they stand out. That gets tiresome and we tend to want rest for private spaces.
But overall I agree. If everything is uber-colorful, that can become just overwhelming. Also we are a lot more stimulated throughout the day with screen and movies and games. In the olden days you didn't have a smartphone with a colorful screen, so putting lots of colour in your house or your church made more sense.
I'd want less advertisement, and more thoughtful color choices throughout cities and digital spaces.
It's well known it in fact isn't, otherwise learning would be impossible. Learning still isn't perfectly understood but one key characteristic is likely modulating synaptic strength (the weights mentioned). Also, yes, every cell and in particular neurons are very complex systems, although synapses themselves have various simplifying properties (specially along the axon, electrical communication really is the main method of communication).
No, they are exactly the same, but taken to their extreme, yet inherent evolution.
Putting you in jail or hanging you for "illegal speech" are just two degrees of punishment for violating the laws of the land, as it were. The degree of punishment is just a cultural thing. The only question is one: are you free, or not?
No one is forcing you to use free-speech platforms, but to criticize them you need to understand what freedom means in the first place.
This thread is not about jail, but preventing you from posting something on a specific platform. (Moderation) If you think that's exactly the same as hanging people, you need to talk to actual people outside...
On the other hand, moderation can stop troll farms posting negative things about homosexuality non-stop. And it can help stop things like doxxing and promoting criminal activity and downright evil stuff.
I don't oppose privacy tools existing, specially for edge cases like investigative journalism and oppressive regimes as you mentioned. I mostly oppose people using and promoting unmoderated or inadequately moderated services. I guess what's being discussed here is mostly infrastructure not services, but still I think the infrastructure may be able to help promote or facilitate healthy services.
I've seen the outsized harm free for all spaces (usually "for teh lulz") can do to society, when we thought it was just innocent "shitposting".
I encourage people to participate in spaces where you know there's ethical moderation (that also leaves leeway for cultural differences), avoid otherwise, and don't encourage anyone to participate there. I think HN is a pretty good example of that.
I don't understand at all how some growth is a required precondition for continued existence. There is no rule saying that companies must grow or else they automatically vanish from existence.
I think it's pretty well explained above, costs grow, unexpected things can happen, things you use wear out, and the market you're in will change over time. If you don't grow at least a little inflation will drown you in rising costs. If you don't grow a little you'll be less resilient to costly shocks. If you don't grow and preferences change, you'll be stuck producing something no one wants anymore. Any of these things can kill a firm. Growth allows you to reinvest and adapt.
I'll bite. First, each human is kind of a separate universe, another 80 billion neurons to converse with, each with our own histories and vastly different knowledge and experience. In a conversation, we learn a lot from each other, and better understand how we can be different in skills, and even in basic things like emotion, motivation, etc.., better understanding what it means to be a human, and better understanding what it means to be in general. Also, it's very important for us to maintain some kind of social contact (I think written counts as well), because our brains language ability will degrade and we will lose critical skills including reading social cues.
Speaking of social cues, interacting with others specially in a complex environment where there can be severe competition as well as cooperation and difficult coordination, is something that also is worth practicing.
I have nothing against solo games, but this kind of thing is not practiced in a solo game.
Finally, I think other kinds of games (e.g. in competitive games) tend to have very simple interactions and objectives, compared to an MMO: there's a clear objective to win that's shared by everyone. Some MMOs have much more interesting interactions, where each person is interested in a different thing, and I think this contributes to a very rich atmosphere that isn't just 'Go win, try to win match, go out', i.e. more life-analogue (without other limitations of life, like you can't actually die, and being poor isn't as terrible as it often is IRL :( ).
So just be more in the real world? (I mean, IRL) Well, yes, but there are advantages to virtual worlds, as long as they're not designed to be simply addictive time sinks. And there are advantages to the real world.
The inputs to a computer game are more limited, you can't see people, their faces (and sometimes voices), the graphics are still a far cry from the more beautiful places.
Also, real life is full of responsibilities and large parts of it still, well, suck (bad jobs, exploitative practices, etc.). I think we're improving somewhat (greatly hampered by greed and power games).
If you have interesting activities IRL, like a great fulfilling job and hobbies (that are also potentially useful in other ways, like charity work), then by all means, but I think virtual worlds have their place in our lives.
Dignity should be intrinsic, not a result of labor. Of course, labor is today necessary, (and in a way will always be necessary by someone), so working is indeed dignified to the extent it helps other people.
I think chores aren't necessarily the terrible boredom. But having a robot as an option, you can do them as a sort of hobby if and when you want. That seems nice.
I think we also will need to develop maturity to deal with our free time, but it's probably not the disaster I've seem many claim (that we lose meaning) -- maybe their way to cope with an unfair world? or my way to cope with laziness.
The main thing is how to protect ourselves from rulers when we aren't necessary for labor. It seems like a difficult but solvable problem. Being able to choose how much to work (and play) is the dream!
Just wanna point out that making stuff is different from having stuff. Making your shoe is much different from buying a Nike from the store (and I don't make shoes ;) ).
The craft is an activity, kind of an art by itself. Many find it enjoyable.
It's a luxury journey that most people around the world simply can't afford. Modern world is a marvel because it feeds and clothes them. If they had to pay a market rate to the artisanal shoemaker, they would walk barefoot.
IMO, they should be playing games or sports instead. Give people more opportunities to do just what you said (instead of working supposedly boring (at least to them) jobs), instead of hurting people/property to achieve that.
