> is like saying you know black people and that somehow it affords you some privilege others do not possess.
Of course it does. Interacting with black people (or any race) affords you insight into their life experiences, struggles, worldview etc...
Of course sociological discourse is highly subjective but this attitude on HN that anecdotal data has no value whatsoever is silly. Do you seriously expect every fact of every people to be published in some infallible academic journal?
Based on a fairly cursory examination, the "N-word" ban is largely enforced by white people and using it is likely to get them more riled up than black folk.
So simultaneously I can imagine how black people wouldn't care and why that doesn't matter. The word isn't banned because blacks have delicate eardrums, it is banned because white people are showing respect.
Have you been to a college campus in the last two or three years?
There is a serious smartphone addiction problem. It is seriously worrying to see so many of my peers craning their necks, starting at their phone for hours on end. On the bus, in class, while hanging out, it is an observable fact that everyone is almost always on their phone.
I personally believe we are in a watershed moment for human civilization. The harms of this smartphone addicted world will snowball down into later generations who have never known a life without every need catered for and every boring moment seized by entertainment.
Fast forward 30 years, and we are doing OK. Things are different, but OK for us. "Videogames" have been replaced by "games" and we take them for granted and don't pay that much attention.
My take is that, for Generation Alpha kids, all the technology will be like bicycles or cars for us: It will be ubiquitous and they will all now how to use it. So there won't be any question about their use.
Is any of this backed by real facts or just your "kids these days" observations? Today's youth is better suited for dealing with smartphones and the overall connected world than we could ever be. All the people I know with real technological addiction problems (whether to smartphones, social media, scams, online radicalization or anything else) are like 45+.
Funny, however: a newspaper that learns about what you like and can infinitely supply the most engaging material is not the same as a newspaper that doesn't.
> All the people I know with real technological addiction > problems (whether to smartphones, social media, scams, online radicalization or anything else) are like 45+.
Exactly. No one is safe. Everyone I know in my age group (15-26) can not exist without opening up their smartphone every 5 seconds to check social media or watch YouTube.
There was a good documentary about this topic called The Social Network. You may have heard of it. I think it is a good starting point to this way of thinking.
We don't really know how this turns out in the long run. These kids do have an IRL social life, even if they're constantly staring at a screen.
I wonder how they will live their day by day when they are pensioners and their old friends which they haven't seen in decades still will be around inside their phones, asking how they're doing, how their day was.
Then they'll make a trip and visit them because they are nearby. Not much different as it was in the past, but better connected.
The principal purpose of a newspaper in the olden days was not to seize your attention, trap you into scrolling onto endless feeds, or relieve one from every moment of boredem with YouTube.
As a one-time sub-editor, that was exactly the purpose. The medium has changed, but the aim hasn't, much. Newspapers used to provide information, opinions, diversions, and a guide to the TV listings for when you were tired of reading your newspaper. I got in trouble occasionally for writing overly cynical descriptors of what was on TV that evening and generating upset letters to the editor.
I was expecting to read that article from mid-1800s or early 1900s lamenting how everyone just sits there in trains, public transports, etc. Just reading their newspapers and not paying attention to their surroundings or socializing.
Well, it was a visual version. But if anyone has a link to the article I remember, I would appreciate it.
If this is true, the watershed moment was actually the introduction of the television. Multiple generations have grown up glued to it and influenced by it. Before that it was radio. But each time a new technology vies for our attention, it does it differently, and a new successor comes up that changes things yet again. It is most likely that we cannot predict what the future holds from all these changes as each time it has a slightly different form and effects.
I predict the next one is a contact lens with a ticker-tape of entertaining information, and machine-learning driven "ad placements" which are phrases/sentence structure designed to call one's mind to a product's slogan without directly printing it.
Did you read the resignation letter? I thought it was pretty obvious that corruption - maybe in a less sinister form - was the underlying reason for the issues he brought up.
Given how wrapped the letter is in one-sided rhetoric and how full it is of sweeping, dismissive accusations such as "we all knew the mendacious reasons had nothing to do with academic standards"... how exactly do extract an "obvious" takeaway about the underlying events?
Of course it does. Interacting with black people (or any race) affords you insight into their life experiences, struggles, worldview etc...
Of course sociological discourse is highly subjective but this attitude on HN that anecdotal data has no value whatsoever is silly. Do you seriously expect every fact of every people to be published in some infallible academic journal?