Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
UUCP on eternal september - now socio-technical discussion
2 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 8, 2024, 5:05:15 AM1/8/24
to
I've cross-posted this to, and set followup to, e-s.talk, as it's
drifted off what's really appropriate for the support group, and I don't
want to try Ray's patience/waste his time in the support group with this
discussion.
In message <ung0ll$1ecsc$2...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 8 Jan 2024 13:19:49,
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes
>On 08/01/24 06:38, immibis wrote:
[]
>Here in the Philippines (noting that I am
>from Australia), I don't think people are
>showing off their phones for social status.
>It's all-Android here btw. No-one is interested
>in your phone. They are only interested in their
>own phone. To use. Not to show you.
That's very different from some societies: some the type/version of
'phone is, sadly, very significant to some people.
[]
>I don't see anyone (individual) expecting you
>to use a smartphone.
Here (UK), you get that expectation a lot: OK, you said "(individual)",
and it's mostly companies/organisations that _impose_ the expectation,
but if you - as I do - don't follow that expectation, lots of
individuals think you are odd, the least effect being that they don't
have much sympathy for you when not using one causes you difficulties.
[]
>> People use their phones for banking not just because they can,
>> but also because banks *require* it. If you're required to have a phone
>> to have a bank account, a job, a house, and so on, you may as well use
>> it for "silly" things like looking up facts on Wikipedia, or listening
>> to podcasts, or posting selfies of your food.
Here it's not a requirement for all banks, though I think all of them
_offer_ it, and make things _easier_ by that means. I use telephone
banking, and _usually_ that's fine - though (a) there's _sometimes_ a
slight wait to be answered and (b) they have _some_ savings accounts
that aren't available other than online (though that can be computer
rather than 'phone).
>
>Most people here don't have bank accounts.
>In part because there's a maintaining balance
>that they aren't willing to maintain. About US$40.
Ah, that's not the general case here.
>
>I see perfectly intelligent hardworking people
>going to the bank instead of doing it online.
>They have smartphones. They do post pictures in
>Facebook group chat.
That's something that a lot of companies - and individuals - here fail
to grasp: that some people might have - and use - computers, or even
smartphones, but not _want_ to do everything via them. The attitude is
that if you have one, you should use it for everything - and if you
don't have one (or even if you say you don't, which is sometimes the
only way to proceed), you're weird.
[]
>Hey - I've noticed that all these communist
>officials seem to be living high off the hog -
>I thought communism was supposed to make
>everyone equal?
That's the problem with pure communism: it removes, or at least severely
reduces, incentives to do anything beyond the minimum. (Capitalism also
has problems.)
>
>Yeah - you're right - let's start a
>non-communist revolution this time.
>
Such revolutions - peaceful and otherwise - do happen from time to time.
[]
>individual - and anyway, they could have a
>conversation like:
>
>Hey, if we have this xxx principle, why is it
>that xxx doesn't extend to the dictator king -
>why doesn't he care what we think and allow
>us to be in charge?
Because he's a dictator (whether king or otherwise); that's what the
word means (-:
[]
>Although with the Russians praising Stalin,
>I don't hold out a lot of hope.
Indeed. Follow Steve Rosenberg's reports from inside Russia (@BBCSteveR
on X-formerly-twitter; I don't know how to on other media) for insight
into what's going on there.
>
>The Thais are the sort of people who can see
>reality, but they don't need my software to
>communicate.
They certainly seem to have recently been the source of a lot of spam,
which some clever person named Thai-dal waves.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Reality television. It's eroding the ability of good scripted television to
survive. - Patrick Duffy in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013
drifted off what's really appropriate for the support group, and I don't
want to try Ray's patience/waste his time in the support group with this
discussion.
In message <ung0ll$1ecsc$2...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 8 Jan 2024 13:19:49,
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes
>On 08/01/24 06:38, immibis wrote:
[]
>Here in the Philippines (noting that I am
>from Australia), I don't think people are
>showing off their phones for social status.
>It's all-Android here btw. No-one is interested
>in your phone. They are only interested in their
>own phone. To use. Not to show you.
That's very different from some societies: some the type/version of
'phone is, sadly, very significant to some people.
[]
>I don't see anyone (individual) expecting you
>to use a smartphone.
Here (UK), you get that expectation a lot: OK, you said "(individual)",
and it's mostly companies/organisations that _impose_ the expectation,
but if you - as I do - don't follow that expectation, lots of
individuals think you are odd, the least effect being that they don't
have much sympathy for you when not using one causes you difficulties.
[]
>> People use their phones for banking not just because they can,
>> but also because banks *require* it. If you're required to have a phone
>> to have a bank account, a job, a house, and so on, you may as well use
>> it for "silly" things like looking up facts on Wikipedia, or listening
>> to podcasts, or posting selfies of your food.
Here it's not a requirement for all banks, though I think all of them
_offer_ it, and make things _easier_ by that means. I use telephone
banking, and _usually_ that's fine - though (a) there's _sometimes_ a
slight wait to be answered and (b) they have _some_ savings accounts
that aren't available other than online (though that can be computer
rather than 'phone).
>
>Most people here don't have bank accounts.
>In part because there's a maintaining balance
>that they aren't willing to maintain. About US$40.
Ah, that's not the general case here.
>
>I see perfectly intelligent hardworking people
>going to the bank instead of doing it online.
>They have smartphones. They do post pictures in
>Facebook group chat.
That's something that a lot of companies - and individuals - here fail
to grasp: that some people might have - and use - computers, or even
smartphones, but not _want_ to do everything via them. The attitude is
that if you have one, you should use it for everything - and if you
don't have one (or even if you say you don't, which is sometimes the
only way to proceed), you're weird.
[]
>Hey - I've noticed that all these communist
>officials seem to be living high off the hog -
>I thought communism was supposed to make
>everyone equal?
That's the problem with pure communism: it removes, or at least severely
reduces, incentives to do anything beyond the minimum. (Capitalism also
has problems.)
>
>Yeah - you're right - let's start a
>non-communist revolution this time.
>
Such revolutions - peaceful and otherwise - do happen from time to time.
[]
>individual - and anyway, they could have a
>conversation like:
>
>Hey, if we have this xxx principle, why is it
>that xxx doesn't extend to the dictator king -
>why doesn't he care what we think and allow
>us to be in charge?
Because he's a dictator (whether king or otherwise); that's what the
word means (-:
[]
>Although with the Russians praising Stalin,
>I don't hold out a lot of hope.
Indeed. Follow Steve Rosenberg's reports from inside Russia (@BBCSteveR
on X-formerly-twitter; I don't know how to on other media) for insight
into what's going on there.
>
>The Thais are the sort of people who can see
>reality, but they don't need my software to
>communicate.
They certainly seem to have recently been the source of a lot of spam,
which some clever person named Thai-dal waves.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Reality television. It's eroding the ability of good scripted television to
survive. - Patrick Duffy in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013
immibis
Jan 8, 2024, 2:06:15 PM1/8/24
to
[cross-posting to e-s.talk following J.P. Gilliver's recommendation.
Send followups there. Not setting Followup-To in case some people don't
read this]
On 1/8/24 11:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> > Again, the pressure to use Whatsapp is insidious.
>
Actually, I don't think so. Most people seem to be happy enough to use
any messaging app - there's not much vendor lock-in here.
Most messaging apps are corporate-controlled, but because of the low
lock-in, the ecosystem isn't really.
>> makes no sense on a mouse (not counting mice with unlocked scroll
>> wheels that you can also fling).
>>
>> Typing on a full-size keyboard is very good, once you have enough
>> practice, but typing on a phone-sized virtual keyboard on a
>> touchscreen is terrible due to the missing physical feedback.
>
> Certainly agree there, though not sure about the reason.
Your fingers can't auto-center on the keys.
>>
>> Almost everything you do on a phone should be modal and use the entire
>> screen, because there isn't much screen space to use.
>
> Or _nearly_ the whole screen: those of us brought up on PCs feel a sense
> of slight worry when something takes over the whole user interface with
> no (apparent, anyway) way to terminate it.
Fine. My first Android phone had hardware "back" and "home" buttons. The
touchscreen-only revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
for the human race. If you were to write a phone OS from scratch, you
could repurpose the power button as home, and use the volume controls
for limited up and down navigation. For some reason, those are the three
buttons that all current phones have.
>> To select a file or folder on a phone, you should scroll through a
>> list by dragging or flinging it, and tap the item you want. Typing the
>> name is terrible UI design for a phone.
>
> Voice recognition might be appropriate in some circumstances (NOT all).
Also correct. Amazon Echo seems to be popular, because you can issue
basic commands from anywhere in your house without having to pull
something out of your pocket or worry about a battery charge level.
Send followups there. Not setting Followup-To in case some people don't
read this]
On 1/8/24 11:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> > Again, the pressure to use Whatsapp is insidious.
>
Actually, I don't think so. Most people seem to be happy enough to use
any messaging app - there's not much vendor lock-in here.
Most messaging apps are corporate-controlled, but because of the low
lock-in, the ecosystem isn't really.
>> makes no sense on a mouse (not counting mice with unlocked scroll
>> wheels that you can also fling).
>>
>> Typing on a full-size keyboard is very good, once you have enough
>> practice, but typing on a phone-sized virtual keyboard on a
>> touchscreen is terrible due to the missing physical feedback.
>
> Certainly agree there, though not sure about the reason.
Your fingers can't auto-center on the keys.
>>
>> Almost everything you do on a phone should be modal and use the entire
>> screen, because there isn't much screen space to use.
>
> Or _nearly_ the whole screen: those of us brought up on PCs feel a sense
> of slight worry when something takes over the whole user interface with
> no (apparent, anyway) way to terminate it.
Fine. My first Android phone had hardware "back" and "home" buttons. The
touchscreen-only revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
for the human race. If you were to write a phone OS from scratch, you
could repurpose the power button as home, and use the volume controls
for limited up and down navigation. For some reason, those are the three
buttons that all current phones have.
>> To select a file or folder on a phone, you should scroll through a
>> list by dragging or flinging it, and tap the item you want. Typing the
>> name is terrible UI design for a phone.
>
> Voice recognition might be appropriate in some circumstances (NOT all).
Also correct. Amazon Echo seems to be popular, because you can issue
basic commands from anywhere in your house without having to pull
something out of your pocket or worry about a battery charge level.
kyonshi
Jan 8, 2024, 2:14:43 PM1/8/24
to
On 1/8/2024 8:06 PM, immibis wrote:
> [cross-posting to e-s.talk following J.P. Gilliver's recommendation.
> Send followups there. Not setting Followup-To in case some people don't
> read this]
>
> On 1/8/24 11:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> > Again, the pressure to use Whatsapp is insidious.
> >
>
> Actually, I don't think so. Most people seem to be happy enough to use
> any messaging app - there's not much vendor lock-in here.
>
> Most messaging apps are corporate-controlled, but because of the low
> lock-in, the ecosystem isn't really.
>
I missed out on Whatsapp for the longest time, but somehow it has become
> [cross-posting to e-s.talk following J.P. Gilliver's recommendation.
> Send followups there. Not setting Followup-To in case some people don't
> read this]
>
> On 1/8/24 11:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> > Again, the pressure to use Whatsapp is insidious.
> >
>
> Actually, I don't think so. Most people seem to be happy enough to use
> any messaging app - there's not much vendor lock-in here.
>
> Most messaging apps are corporate-controlled, but because of the low
> lock-in, the ecosystem isn't really.
>
the standard for people in Germany, to the point that it's now the
primary way to contact my parents or close family there. For a while it
was the only non-work channel I was using for talking with colleagues in
Germany.
I currently live in Poland and it's just not used as much here. Although
some people do have it, especially if they used to work in Germany, from
others you get a bemused "huh"?
Sn!pe
Jan 8, 2024, 4:55:05 PM1/8/24
to
Marco Moock <mm+s...@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> Am 08.01.2024 um 20:29:24 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>
> > Ray has requested that discussions that are not about support must
> > cease. If Ray makes a request, it's a rule. It's his server. He makes
> > the rules.
>
> Rather interesting that you advocate for that in that case.
> eternal-september.* is a distributed hierarchy that exists on other
> servers too.
>
Please respect our host's request, we are here at his invitation.
I recommend that you do not disrespectfully prolong this spat.
[xpost and fu2: eternal-september.talk]
--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
My pet rock Gordon just is.
> Am 08.01.2024 um 20:29:24 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>
> > Ray has requested that discussions that are not about support must
> > cease. If Ray makes a request, it's a rule. It's his server. He makes
> > the rules.
>
> Rather interesting that you advocate for that in that case.
> eternal-september.* is a distributed hierarchy that exists on other
> servers too.
>
Please respect our host's request, we are here at his invitation.
I recommend that you do not disrespectfully prolong this spat.
[xpost and fu2: eternal-september.talk]
--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
My pet rock Gordon just is.
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 8, 2024, 5:44:01 PM1/8/24
to
immibis <ne...@immibis.com> wrote:
>you are now globally killfiled, not just in specific groups like before
Oh my
Will the next sockpuppet seamus creates have me kill filed too?
>you are now globally killfiled, not just in specific groups like before
Oh my
Will the next sockpuppet seamus creates have me kill filed too?
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 8, 2024, 5:49:11 PM1/8/24
to
Marco Moock <mm+s...@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 08.01.2024 um 20:29:24 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>Ray has requested that discussions that are not about support must
>>cease. If Ray makes a request, it's a rule. It's his server. He makes
>>the rules.
>Rather interesting that you advocate for that in that case.
>eternal-september.* is a distributed hierarchy that exists on other
>servers too.
Those posting in this thread have been injecting articles via
>Am 08.01.2024 um 20:29:24 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>Ray has requested that discussions that are not about support must
>>cease. If Ray makes a request, it's a rule. It's his server. He makes
>>the rules.
>Rather interesting that you advocate for that in that case.
>eternal-september.* is a distributed hierarchy that exists on other
>servers too.
eternal-september, so Ray's rule applies to them.
One is supposed to discuss topics related to the institution in an
institutional hierarchy. This has nothing to do with whether it's local
or Usenet.
The hierarchy is distributed to allow various seamus sockpuppets to
complain that he's been singled out and prevented from posting by Ray
each and every time there's been a hard disk failure or network failure
or some other technical issue.
0 new messages