-
Technology (and Audience) Capture
Over the past few decades, the history of information technology has become littered with many examples of what I would like to refer to as “technology capture“. I think of this as essentially analogous to “audience capture”. Yet I feel as though in the technology industry there are a few caveats we should be particularly careful about … and I feel the time has come for us to focus on — and address the issues.
The main issue (in my humble opinion) is the hoax known as “artificial intelligence”. It’s “cheap” — “just press a button”. We don’t need no humans … who are prone to failure. [1] Literacy is now often what creators allow robots to do on the proprietary development (i.e. technology) platform.
Source: https://wants.blog/2025/12/20/maybe-this-christmas-i-shall-be-released Slop leads to sloppy sloppiness.
How about if we simply let “pride” refer to all humans and humanity (once again)? Let’s be proud (enough) to admit our failures (or shortcomings), to course-correct and adapt. Adaptation is indeed inherent to our own biology.
If I could choose between a sloppy guess and an educated guess, I think I would choose an educated guess every time.
For example: In the case of so-called “translation”, I trust a cohesive community of educated, trained and most of all engaged human translators far more than I would ever trust any “machine” (aka “AI”) translation anytime.
This reminds me of a quip one of my economics professors used in reference to “social economics”: people who believe too much in statistics seem somewhat predisposed to believing that if a hunter misses shooting a rabbit once on the left and also once on the right, that on average the rabbit has been “successfully” shot.
[1] See “Kintsugi (Finding Motivations & Inspirations for Moving On)” [ https://failure.news.blog/2025/12/18/kintsugi-finding-motivations-inspirations-for-moving-on ]
-
I Read and I Write
Since I spend a lot of my time with a variety of tech gizmos, there are some people who seem curious to “figure out” what I do, and so they ask me to describe what I do. Since this has happened several times before, I have — over many years of their questions and my answers — come to the conclusion that the most appropriate description I can give them is:
I read and I write.
Source: CC0 licensed photo by Karin Christen from the WordPress Photo Directory: https://wordpress.org/photos/photo/6546482017 One thing I myself find curious is that many people seem to feel this answer is insufficient. Yet they are rarely able to explicate how they find my answer unsatisfactory. I think they usually find that my answer is unsatisfactory because it does not involve money.
Let me offer some examples of other things I do quite regularly which also do not involve money.
Almost every day, at some point in the morning I stand up. I walk around and go through various motions and then later in the day I might lie down for a little while, but normally at some point in the later evening I will lie down and then sleep for several hours, usually until the next morning again — and then on the next day these steps will start over and sort of repeat themselves again.
Also, throughout regular days like this I will time and again eat stuff I often refer to quite simply as food. I usually chew and swallow it, and then normally I digest it. Anything I no longer want or need, I will excrete. I find that is a sufficiently detailed description of what I do, and no money is directly involved in motivating me to do such things.
Of course I also do many things daily which do involve money, but I think it would be quite far-fetched for anyone to maintain that everything I do requires money for it to happen.
-
Dovetailing Boundaries with Moving Targets
I am travelling today, and I’ve just decided to combine two pretty much completely different discussions into one combinatorial confrontation.
These days I find I am incessantly concerned about the “shifting sands” of propaganda, manipulation and all that jazz. I think of this sort of like investigating quicksand while I am drowning in it.
In case you already feel queasy about mixed metaphors, perhaps this might be a good moment to take some medicine, because I have a hunch we are headed towards increasing turbulence.
One of by blogger friends (whom I have so far never met “IRL”) wrote a post today about confrontations (see “Is There Such Thing as a Good Confrontation?“). Here, NL writes:
You have to remember that a confrontation takes place because of a negative thing otherwise this wouldn’t be called a confrontation but a discussion, so do not think twice about having this conversation—this will help you so much in the long run.
https://new-lune.com/2025/12/07/is-there-such-thing-as-a-good-confrontation
image source: https://new-lune.com/2024/07/05/3-things-to-be-unapologetic-about I wonder whether it’s possible to maintain boundaries with moving targets. I imagine it might be rather difficult.
-
Kleinanzeigen (a German term for “classified ads” [in English] ) as “Consumer Platform”
Irrational media are usually (simply) consumer platforms, as the content shared via irrational media cannot be rationally contextualized. [1] Since there is no agreed-upon (and shared) meaningful context available, content is normally simply consumed without being interpreted as appropriate (or inappropriate), simply because irrational media do not provide any context for such kinds of evaluations.
In contrast, rational media are contextualized by the corresponding community’s language.
A few days ago, someone recommended a rational media site which I would also refer to as a consumer platform. The site in question goes by the name of “Kleinanzeigen” (which can be roughly translated into English as “classified ads”), in the “DE” top-level domain.
The site seems to be configured in a manner such that “partner organizations” provide “secure” transactions (mainly partners for online payments and also for shipping / delivery). Beyond that, the site is also rather heavy-handed with respect to tracking its users, and presumably this user data collection is then also sold “down the river” — perhaps to the same partners, but perhaps also to other partner companies interested in trading in user data.
Although I set up an account, I have decided this business model is too onerous for me.
maybe I’m to blame for all I’ve heard (but I’m not sure)
Nirvana (Kurt Cobain), “Lithium” [ https://www.nirvana.com/video/nirvana-lithium-official-music-video# ]Yet I feel perhaps the German community using this site appreciates this “big brother” approach to law and order.
What I find curious is that such control is not (as far as I know) an inherent part of the meaning of “Kleinanzeigen” (in German language). I feel the users of this site consume this approach (although they are not forced to do so, it appears to be a “default” setting, and one the site seems to strongly discourage from changing).
When a rational media site’s administrative staff imposes rules on its users, I feel that such deviation from the meaning of the site’s name jeopardizes the site’s rational media status. I guess it depends on whether such impositions are seen more as a “feature” or more as a “bug”.
In this case, I feel it’s a bug — so I will refrain from using the site. Yet I can also understand that there may indeed be a thriving community of users who see it as a “feature” — and also one they are happily willing to consume.
[1] See “Rational Media” [ https://phlat.design.blog/2024/01/14/rational-media ]
-
Popular Populism + Popularity Platforms
This week I will offer a little change of pace (and not merely because of a perceived lack of Ps).
The other day (actually evening), I attended a “popular music” concert.
How do I know it was “popular” music? By paying attention to the extremely quasi-woke Boomer radio station I regularly listen to (which is also sort of a German equivalent to the BBC in terms of propaganda — see also “Irrational Media Maintains BBC Propaganda Was Merely Edit, Error, … Epic Fail !! 😉“). I tell my friends that the reason I listen to this radio station is because in the Hinterland where I live, there seems to be a high risk of flooding, earthquakes and/or nuclear war … and therefore I need to stay informed in case any such event should happen (and I also like listening to the local weather report a lot).
Source: https://events.music.blog/2025/11/21/im-springbrunnen-baden-mit-nackten-milliardaren One of the songs Dota Kehr sang is titled “Im Springbrunnen” [1]. I guess the song is supposed to be ridiculous or funny (or maybe both), but I particularly like it because in the beginning she raises the question “what do I want?” and she denies wanting a few “popular” things and then concludes that she wants the thing mentioned in the title. I believe wants are a very serious matter (which is why I maintain http://Wants.Blog 😉 ). In her song, Dota seems to contradict her own declarations (without acknowledging it) and therefore she also “walks the line”, a fine-tuned balancing act traversing between rationality and irrationality.
What we want is (in my humble opinion) not simply a matter of personal preferences. For example, I have often pointed out that do-gooders need the “others” they aim to help (this seems [to me] to be somewhat analagous to the way narcissists need victims they can abuse narcissistically). Indeed: Wants are anything but simple, which I also try to describe a little (more) on the homepage of Wants.Blog.
People usually appear incognizant of the so-called “platforms” they acknowledge (this is actually a recurring theme of this blog — see e.g. “Interesting Things“, “If Google is the Pope of the Internet, Then Who Are You & I?” and also the many articles tagged with “Human Brain Conditioner“). Whether radio stations or stock markets (see also “More or Less is Better“) or websites (like Google or whatever [other] AI scheme is “en vogue” at the moment) or the stage (that artists like Dota Kehr climb up onto), all such platforms are socially sanctioned popularity contests.
Ironically, Dota also seems to remain incognizant of her own quasi-popularity, putting on airs of unbridled naiveté. As a winner, she shouts out her own truths toward her audiences, treating the consumers of her apparently insightful morsels of wisdom as … dutifully devoted followers (see also “There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute“).
[1] The refrain she sings is “Ich will im Springbrunnen baden mit nackten Milliardären”
-
Irrational Media Maintains BBC Propaganda Was Merely Edit, Error, … Epic Fail !! 😉
What makes something someone publishes “Fake News”? What makes false statements, lies and deceit an epic fail?
I have already written at length about the difference between rational media (based on natural language) and irrational media (based on brand names) — and also about my opinion that irrational media are distrustworthy* (i.e., that they are **worthy of *distrust). [1]
PHLAT — Pretty Hyper Local and Topical At this point, I cannot comprehend why anyone would pay any attention to irrational media — besides, perhaps, as some kind of diversion simply for “shits and giggles”.
And yet when I listen to Adam saying “I’ve been watching the quad-screen” and then mentioning that a “developing story is worth discussing for a moment” that reeks of their old-fashioned approach to what they (Adam and John) consider to be “mainstream media”. ( NoAgenda Show, Episode 1815, 2:38:40 [ https://www.noagendashow.net/listen/1815/transcript?t=2:38:40 ] )
Yet Adam and John are not alone in their outrage and (“pearl clutching”) over their “self inflicted” (that’s a hat tip to Immanuel Kant’s seminal work concerning “What is Enlightenment?”) outdated perspectives. People who follow this backwards (indeed, I am inclined to even say “retarded“) view of “mainstream” have mainly themselves to blame. Here I am reminded of the image of Emerson visiting Thoreau in jail. [2]
People are free to pay attention to whatever they want to pay attention to. If someone wishes to pay attention to irrational media, then simply must deal with the associated consequences of that decision.
Let me repeat that again: Anyone who is shocked or outraged about what they themselves chose to pay attention to has only themselves to blame for having paid any attention to it.
The only way something can be true or false is if someone is able to compare it to some more or less “objective” measuring stick. Expressions made by irrational media cannot be compared to anything other than the brand name used to contextualize the expression. Here, I am reminded of the way (in its early days) Google was quite eager to point out that it’s search engine “results” were merely the opinion of the Google company (which they have — in the meantime — rebranded as “Alphabet”).
Personally, since I am not interested in irrational media, I don’t see any reason to be upset when some irrational media publisher publishes blatant propaganda.
[1] See e.g. “Rational Media” [ https://phlat.design.blog/2024/01/14/rational-media ]
[2] Apparently Emerson asked Thoreau “What are you doing in here?”, and then Thoreau replied “What are you doing out there?”
-
One Milieu vs Many Milieus
I have already written a lot about the concept “milieu” … and yet I feel I need to point out that the way the word is commonly used seems rather misleading (at least to me).
“Language is a fluid thing. Where there has been a mixing of cultures and languages, as there was in England in the 11th century during the Norman French invasion, a phenomenon called “borrowing language” occurs.” https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/in-lieu-of The common understanding of milieu is rather static, I think. It seems like people map into particular milieus in a 1-to-1 fashion. I think it is rather uncommon to think of milieus as transient spaces which we can either move into or out of, switching from one milieu to another milieu much like we might change our clothing from time to time.
Even more rare, I guess, is to consider milieus to overlap with one another, such that at one and the same time, we might find ourselves in more than one single milieu.
I think there is nothing in a “definition” of the word “milieu” that might prove or disprove such a view of milieus. Indeed, milieu seems to be a foreign concept to almost everyone who uses the term — unless there are still some people who are “native speakers” of Latin. 😐
-
Mainstream Ignorance
There is something I want to write about related to this topic, but it’s a different topic that hasn’t completely crystalized into a coherent concept yet (at least not in my brain).
So I will write about something similar — simply because it is more accessible (to my brain) right now.
The other day I was talking with a friend who has now been “following” (for want of a better term) some of Charlie Kirk’s content. He was commenting on the difficulty he noticed in “making connections” between people who think differently on a very fundamental basis. I think this particular point is also close to the ideas I am working on, but haven’t been able to delineate yet.
I pointed out something apparently quite different (because he seemed unable to see a connection between what I was say and what he was saying).
I mentioned that most of the people on Earth are not within the “mainstream” focus … and perhaps I failed to introduce concepts like propaganda, manipulation, the Human Brain Conditioner, etc. Since these phenomena are very central to making “mainstream media”, “mainstream ideas” and similar mainstream crap, what I was mentioning was apparently also not very “accessible” to my friend’s thinking.
Perhaps the “Bread and Circuses” concept fits in here. The whole idea is to make some ideas accessible, such that other ideas become inaccessible — in other words: ignored.
The whole idea that people are free to choose the ideas to focus their attention on is what the Human Brain Conditioner is supposed to fix. The Human Brain Conditioner is supposed to (not only) increase awareness on preferred ideas. It should also prevent attention to focus on problematic ideas.
Mainstream definitely needs to promote ignorance.
See also “Mainstream Milieus“ -
Mainstreaming a Different Mainstream
I remember the first time I attended a Quaker Meeting (for Worship) many decades ago just like it was yesterday.
It was an awe-inspiring experience.
I guess maybe when Simon and Garfunkel wrote “The Sound of Silence”, they might have been trying to capture a similarly phenomenal experience.
I am often reminded of this experience — nay, perhaps I even think about it incessantly. Again, just about a day and a half ago.
My own religion is, I believe, much more “universal” than that of the “Religious Society of Friends” (Quakers). [1]
About a day and a half ago, I watched this neato podcast episode with a guy named Daryl Davis. He talked about what he referred to as Five Core Values that Every Human Being Wants.
source: “Mainstream Ideas” [ https://podcasts.video.blog/2025/10/25/mainstream-ideas ] I don’t intend to pretend to treat these as if they were Holy Scripture, but I do wish to point out that they seem very reminiscent of a core “raison d’être” of Quaker philosophy — namely the notion that there is something of “God” in every human being (and for me, personally I feel there is something like that in every thing, i.e. everything).
In my humble opinion, everything is just about as mainstream as you can get.
If your concept of mainstream seems different, then perhaps that’s just a different kind of mainstream. I have a hunch that there are a bunch of people “out there” who are very willing to tell everyone that their mainstream is the only real mainstream. I listen to that and feel unmoved — sorta chill (maybe a little like Daryl suggests). 🙂
[1] Please note that (as far as I know) there are innumerable “variants” of this approach to religion. Personally, I feel every person should speak only of their own beliefs, rather than attempting to act as if their own belief system were identical to the belief system of any particular organization.
-
Imma Throw the Book at You
I love this contraction! Book people prolly aren’t familiar with many of the popular time-saving contractions in use online, and this one is really oustanding. It’s actually a sort of double-(or triple?)-contraction: both “I’m” and “gonna” are contractions, and then the “-m-” is also a contraction of a bunch of apparently superfluous sounds and the end result requires just a tiny little bit more effort than “um”.
It is also perfectly fitting for this post. On the heels of last week’s speculative ponderings (see “Consumer Behavior and Belief“), I’ve experienced a wonderful “AHA!” sort of insight into human brain conditioning. And the most stupendous aspect of this discovery is the immense time scale over which it has played out (so far) — at least it seems completely stupedous to me. This process has (so far) lasted over half a millennium. I acknowledge that this is indeed minute on biological or geological time scales, but it is nonetheless vast compared to the expected payouts of most get-rich-quick schemes. [1]
Humans have already been printing paper for thousands of years, but it was “only just” a little over five centuries ago that what was ultimately to become the “publishing” industry was among the first (of the plethora of industries to follow) to become industrialized.
The output of publishing has been phenomenal. For most of the time (so far) it has lead to miles and miles and miles and miles of printed material. The volumes of tomes have become gargantuan. The paper-based industry has aged (if not even aged out), but the legacy remains intact. Century upon century, humans use books to show off their intellectual prowess much like churches employ altars to focus the attention of devout and would-be believers alike. To this very day, a wall of books is a favorite background used by many influencers, vloggers and similar virtual celebrities. And many (if not even most) of the most influential influencers sit down with their so-called guests to talk about some new and improved book that’s just now hitting the book market shelves “as we speak”.
As Esther Dyson pointed out several decades ago, the legacy publishing industry can very easily be technologically disintermediated (as data can now be freely copied). In contrast, the habitual conditioning of humans throughout society (including not only educational institutions, but also legal, regulatory and governmental technologies — to name just a few of the widespread array of industries to be affected by the Human Brain Conditioner complex) has led to a widespread lethargy to adopt new technologies.
Paper remains stupendously resistant to reform, change, progress etc.
Yet this, I feel, is merely one example, one instance, of a much broader phenomenon. The Human Brain Conditioner is now a vast array of technologies that form large parts of the entire infrastructure that has become (over the last few millennia) the habitat of humans worldwide — things like roads and houses, irrigation systems and much much more. What makes many of these technologies so resistant to change is the effort humans have put into cementing them into society. And a big part of the reason for this, I believe, is the way our brains are apparently naturally inclined to be oriented towards social cohesion. Deviations from social norms are generally dangerous.
Increasingly, however, it is becoming more and more obvious that this social baggage we need to carry day in and day out is not actually helping us — instead, it’s actually hindering us from moving on and progressing beyond the past technologies, which increasingly only bog us down like a ball and chain.
“Ball and Chain” adapted from image @ https://mhnsw.au/stories/convict-sydney/ball-and-chain [1] cf. also “If Google is the Pope of the Internet, Then Who Are You & I?” and also “Google can’t answer question about using Google (or NOT)“
Social Business (WordPress weblog)
Socio Business blog 