currently i agree, only because it's designed that way from the manufacturer.

A solid state machine with a reasonable interface feels like an extension of self, but i suspect that everyone's ideal interface is different, meaning the more mass-marketable something is, the worse it fits, resulting in everyone ending up with bottom tier experience on hardware capable of providing so much more than the user will ever know.


@eryn I'm actually talking in a far more fundamental sense, thinkign of technology as "means to ends": method, process, device, material, system, etc.

Thinking about this for a while, it seems there are a few distinct modalities involved, and all provide _both_ benefits _and_ consequences or limitations, some obvious, some not.

This isn't a matter of just "stuff manufactured for the masses" but basics such as...agriculture and irrigation management, or early simple machines.



@eryn Though the dynamic accellerates greatly with complexity.

One way of thinking about this is that any technology is a node or set of nodes, with interactions, some desired, some not, some intentional, some not. The more complex, the more nodes and interactions. And the more nodes and interactions, the greater the likelihood of negative consequences, especially unforseen ones.

There's a lot of Joseph Tainter and Robert Merton bound up in this, FWIW.



Sign in to participate in the conversation

Everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct! Thank you. Mastodon.cloud is maintained by Sujitech, LLC.