finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks
-
how about never tell a media studies scholar how to represent a text
Sitting with the semiotics of fixed typography, as signifier of the book as artifact, that would be elided by a mere copypasta of raw text.
To wit, the OP specifically is presenting this passage as historically situated in a specific media form.
-
finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks
@loriemerson i think that every currently available smart phone breaks all of these.
-
finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks
@loriemerson It reminds me of one of my paternal grandparents' favourite William Morris quote.
“Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.”
-
@loriemerson 10. Never post an image/screenshot if you can type the same in plain text.
@aakoskin @loriemerson says the person who doesn't alt text their image posts.
-
@loriemerson 10. Never post an image/screenshot if you can type the same in plain text.
@aakoskin @loriemerson On the other hand, if they had not posted at all then I would never have come across this information. At least the image has alt-text.
Perhaps also the extra information that the picture offers, that is, it comes from a printed document makes me interested to try to track down a copy of this document.
Thus, giving me the option of having the information in a (relatively) immutable form on my bookshelf instead if in an ephemeral and thus editable form on the internet.
-
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
-
finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks
I forget about this regularly then when I need to remember it someone helpfully reminds me.
Thank you.
-
S snue@radikal.social shared this topic
-
finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks
@loriemerson indeed. I think I've come across this before but I had completely forgotten about these principles till your post showed up in my feed today. Thanks for reminding me that it exists!
-
@loriemerson indeed. I think I've come across this before but I had completely forgotten about these principles till your post showed up in my feed today. Thanks for reminding me that it exists!
@loriemerson oh yes! It's from the essay "Why I will not buy a computer". I thought so, but didn't mention it because I wasn't sure—I see now that @msbellows linked to it below.
I have a print version of that too btw. One that I can carry around and read ever when the grid is down
-
finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks
@loriemerson I feel like I read this back in the day in some Whole Earth thing or an issue of the Utne Reader, but had forgotten. Thank you, because it's even more timely now.
-
@aakoskin @loriemerson hey, this reply sucks
@redoak It doesn't occur to you that the post directly conflicts with its own content, and the comment you responded to explains how. You just don't like it.
"This sucks" is not an argument or proposal. It's what little kids say about anything they don't like, because we excuse them from adult responsibilies such as accounting for themselves.
If you're not a little kid, you should understand why "I don't like thing" does not flatter you.
-
how about never tell a media studies scholar how to represent a text
@inquiline How about get over yourself.
I come from a family of scientists and academics. Anyone with the attitude expressed in your comment worships the irory tower I grew up in. They should not. Academics are ordinary people who make ordinary mistakes that call for ordinary correction.
Images that are just text are fucking garbage, and deserve to be called out for it. Doesn't matter who posted it.
By the way, if you're going to talk like this, try writing like an educated grown-up.
-
@lxskllr @nickrauchen @aakoskin I am having trouble wrapping my head why the format of my post is worth anyone commenting on - the text is in the image. it's not elegant but I wanted to give a screenshot of the exact text I was reading from Harper's. surely there are more important things to discuss here, and in general, than policing precisely how people post
@loriemerson Don't worry; you're not the only one here who's excessively full of themself.
Go touch grass.
-
finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks
@loriemerson I disagree only with °cheaper° clause. because if something is better and higher in tehnology, it just cannot be cheaper. and cheaper are usually poor quality things or things made by slaves that are underpaid.
but I would add a clause of longevity: a new instrument should run and work fine longer than previous one. -
"Never post an image/screenshot if you can type the same in plain text."
For a simple list like the above. I agree.
I suspect that there is a "plain text penalty" for words/ideas without imagery in social media, but I'm not up on the trends, rules, or research in that domain.
@nickrauchen @aakoskin@bitwoods.duckdns.org @loriemerson
The image being a picture from a book conveys additional information (that this quote comes from a book at least) and may give additional weight to the pure text.
If the text where a screenshot, or just in itself typed on a digital device, ok.
But then still, this discussion would be off topic and typical mastodon rudeness and derailment. -
@ZenHeathen @loriemerson You absolutely should. Here are a couple starting points:
Why I Will Not Buy a Computer (essay): berry-computer.pdf https://classes.matthewjbrown.net/teaching-files/philtech/berry-computer.pdf
The Blue Robe (poem): https://www.writersalmanac.org/index.html%3Fp=6383.html
Thanks for the links!
-
@loriemerson I disagree only with °cheaper° clause. because if something is better and higher in tehnology, it just cannot be cheaper. and cheaper are usually poor quality things or things made by slaves that are underpaid.
but I would add a clause of longevity: a new instrument should run and work fine longer than previous one.remember moore's law? it had us all used to expecting cheaper tech as time went by, or far more powerful tech costing the same. that's the expectation encoded there, I believe.
CC: @loriemerson@post.lurk.org
-
remember moore's law? it had us all used to expecting cheaper tech as time went by, or far more powerful tech costing the same. that's the expectation encoded there, I believe.
CC: @loriemerson@post.lurk.org@loriemerson @lxo it is not actual for many years already. the era of possible cheap development based on existing technologies is over and further envolvement takes serious scientific research and engineering efforts and investments.
that's why we don't see any improvements in hardware the past decades. they just faced the limits that are not passable with already exising solutions. -
@redoak It doesn't occur to you that the post directly conflicts with its own content, and the comment you responded to explains how. You just don't like it.
"This sucks" is not an argument or proposal. It's what little kids say about anything they don't like, because we excuse them from adult responsibilies such as accounting for themselves.
If you're not a little kid, you should understand why "I don't like thing" does not flatter you.
@wesdym wow, this one sucks too
-
@wesdym wow, this one sucks too
@redoak Grow up.
-
@loriemerson @lxo it is not actual for many years already. the era of possible cheap development based on existing technologies is over and further envolvement takes serious scientific research and engineering efforts and investments.
that's why we don't see any improvements in hardware the past decades. they just faced the limits that are not passable with already exising solutions.that may be true, but realize you're arguing with something written in 1987, and what you dispute doesn't relate with what's written there. it's not about how expensive it is to develop and evolve something, but how tech tends to become cheaper over time, as new tech displaces old one
CC: @iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org @loriemerson@post.lurk.org
