/roulette/ - Tech

Tech board tryout

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

(80.21 KB 500x628 1442554333164.jpg)
/tech/ was always slow Comrade 02/13/2020 (Thu) 20:11:02 No. 328
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22318707 >People miss the quality of discussions on Usenet, but don't ever think about why the discussions were better. >Biggest factor I think that made the discussions better is that folks were not connected all the time so discussions would span days or weeks. You had time think between posts. Folks would log on once or twice a day. Obviously there were exceptions. Today a reddit thread has about a 24 hour shelf life because of its global nature, and then it dies. Furthermore the most intense discussions will happen in bursts and then flame out. People aren't engaging in discussion they are shouting their opinion into the ether and moving on. Back at the old place, /tech/ had low pph even when unique ips were high This is what made it good Slow boards aren't a bad thing
I agree completely. I have been posting for years and years at this point and the best quality always comes out of the slower boards and threads. I think the argument that it gives people space inbetween screen time and real world activies time to think about their argumentation and points and allows natural and free flowwing coversation is important. I mean, think about it, at this point is the economic system of capitalism not incentivized to KEEP us posting at all times no matter how vapid and erroneous? The internet has basically become a ponzi scheme and it's ruining things.
>reading HN (even ironically)
>>330 What's wrong with HN?
>>331 Anon, I...
https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/three-decades-internet-freedom-activism.html A bit liberal in sentiment but two key points >, I loved those digging into those cases, but I also enjoyed taking frequent breaks from studying to participate in the earliest digital forums online—bulletin-board systems but also bigger distributed systems like Usenet, where I could talk with people from all over the world. >That’s the biggest thing I learned at the Wikimedia Foundation: When ordinary people are empowered to come together and work on a common, humanity-benefiting project like Wikipedia, unexpectedly great and positive things can happen. Wikipedia is not the anomaly my journalist friend thinks it is. Instead, it’s a promise of the good works that ordinary people freed by the internet can create.
>>339 >muh secondary sources Wikipedia is a liberal propaganda mouthpiece, would it burn, nothing of value would be lost. Jimmy Wales is a right-wing libertarian and a crypto-fascist as well.
>>344 Then contribute to the alternative: https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>>345 How will you prevent this from becoming another rationalwiki? Do you even understand why Wikipedia turned out the way it did?
>>350 What we need is an Hegelian encyclopædia. or... http://bse.sci-lib.com/
>>350 >Do you even understand why Wikipedia turned out the way it did? You're being pretty vague here.
>>358 The rules and administrative structure that allowed Wikipedia to be controlled by partisan cliques and push misinformation in articles.
>>365 Wikipedia is a MSM mouthpiece since it requires 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸trusted🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 secondary sources like the NY Times.
>>366 That sort of "reliable source" gatekeeping instead of a commitment to empirical truth is definitely part of it. But the other problem is the entire process of creating and uncreating admins and their ability to selectively enforce existing rules.
>>366 >>369 I get what you're saying but how DO you build a reliable public-edited encyclopedia without some manner of gatekeeping?
>>378 >how DO you build a reliable public-edited encyclopedia You don't. Encyclopædiæ should be written by first-party specialists, but subject to ideological review, like the Soviet one.
I hate when people complain about a board being "slow." It shouldn't matter how many posts there are, but whether or not they're interesting.
>>414 Well, it doesn't help when there is literally zero posts per day.
>>415 That's when you have a thought, come back, and make a post.


no cookies?