From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Rich  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Wolfgang Agnes  wrote:   
   >>>>> Rich  writes:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> D  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> D  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> D  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> This is the truth!  As a thought experiment I sometimes think   
   >>>>>>>>>>> about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr   
   >>>>>>>>>>> of posts, and I don't think I would.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Been there, seen that....  Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now)   
   >>>>>>>>>> the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was   
   >>>>>>>>>> following that it was not possible to keep up.  I was always   
   >>>>>>>>>> behind, and falling further behind each day.  Eventually the fall   
   >>>>>>>>>> behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out.   
   >>>>>>>>>> So I disappeared for a good ten years or so.  Of course, when I   
   >>>>>>>>>> did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as   
   >>>>>>>>>> text posting rates go.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of   
   >>>>>>>>>>> groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to   
   >>>>>>>>>> keep up with if the group was at all active.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social   
   media?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,   
   >>>>>>>> presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you   
   >>>>>>>> just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed.  And if stuff   
   >>>>>>>> does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter   
   based   
   >>>>>>> on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just   
   >>>>>> set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm".  The "algorithm" does it   
   >>>>>> all for you by magic.  Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of   
   >>>>>> the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great   
   >>>>>> opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever   
   >>>>>> its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or   
   >>>>>> omission of various posts to your feed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In other words, it's unacceptable---period.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Indeed, yes.  With a user-local killfile (i.e., the Usenet client   
   >>>> method) then you, the user, is explicitly deciding what you want to   
   >>>> exclude (or include, as most modern clients implement the 'kill' as a   
   >>>> score so one can up/down articles if one wants).   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But with the allmightly algorithm, you are at the mercy of your   
   >>>> corporate overlords.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sadly, as most social media users are very similar to the humans on the   
   >>>> spaceship on the cartoon Wall-E, they are lazy and want "someone else"   
   >>>> to do all the work for them, expecting them to put in the even minimal   
   >>>> effort to curate their own local 'killfile' is likely too much to   
   >>>> expect.   
   >>>   
   >>> And that's a very interesting phenomenon---that people are so   
   >>> uninterested in such relevant matters.  The laziness looks more like a   
   >>> depression, a state of total uninterest in one's life.   
   >>   
   >> Could very well be. What's the statistics on prescribed happy-pills?   
   >> Is it increaseing over the world?   
   >>   
   >> I would not be surprised if a lot of people are looking to be   
   >> constantly distracted, in order not to feel the pain of the empty   
   >> gaping hole in their souls.   
   >>   
   >> Instead they could work on themselves, their values, achievements and   
   >> goal, which would feedback positively, and improve their lives.   
   >>   
   >> I do hope that the pill-people are the exception and not the rule.   
   >   
   > I don't have the statistics at hand, but I would be very surprised if it   
   > is not increasing world wide.  And people don't need to stay off pills   
   > to go depressed.  Just the food they eat daily is enough to bring them   
   > down little by little.  And the dim outlook is that they seem to never   
   > figure it out.   
   >   
      
   What food do they eat daily, and why is that enough? I suspect that I am   
   not eating the standard fare, and I am very unconscious of what man in   
   general tends to eat.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)