@glyph Did you quote post something?

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@aarbrk you don’t have to become a glyph. it’s okay if you just wanna be a grapheme cluster. everybody can render their semasiological selves however they choose (as long as it’s standardized and looks exactly how I like)

[affekt@hachyderm.io]

@glyph I like brands. I tend to dislike the monopolies behind many of them though. Brands are useful shorthand. If a brand fucks up too hard then they get associated with negative imagery and eventually (probably) go away. Conversely if they do a reasonably decent job then it's easy for me to recommend them. my sister asked me what car I recommend, I don't drive anymore and have only bought two cars in twenty years. but they worked so well that I had no problem recommending that brand. Right now Stelantis is pushing ads to infotainment systems. it's really easy to tell her to avoid them.

[gabe@mendeddrum.org]

@glyph it's good to remember why it's called "branding", and who is the calf.

[sovietfish@todon.eu]

@glyph
Some fun turns of phrase if someone is asking if someone else is "y'know, like, AMAB or AFAB?"
- How the fuck should I know; you think I was there?
- (insert joke involving "ACAB")
- Sorry, I'm not a snitch.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@sovietfish I find that when dealing with someone asking a question like this, jokey deflections are unhelpful and confusing. Believe me, I get the impulse, but if they’re asking this question this way, it usually reads to me as somebody *trying* to be inclusive but not understanding the concepts very well, so an earnest and serious conversation is best

[sovietfish@todon.eu]

@glyph I'm not really trying to dispel confusion b/c there really is no solving the real problem, which is not a failure of vocabulary but the persistence of an idea. In a world in which this problem was solvable we would need to have public education campaigns about it (along with a whole host of other gender issues).

I think if we're gonna' try to spin up a bystander training on this it makes sense to describe a variety of situations and a variety of possible responses. (Which, again, fool's errand of a goal, imo.) Trying to make your interlocutor feel uncomfortable/like they just said something dumb can be right for some people in some social settings, just as doing something really awkward to force the guy at the bar who's being really creepy to wait can be effective intervention in some situations.

In any event I love the prospect that having a slow explain-y conversation works well in your experience. By all means

[kingrat@sfba.social]

@glyph I haven't been able to get in since yesterday. I figure me asking for support isn't going to help because it's so widespread.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@kingrat Glad to hear it's not just me. A bit surprised that the news hasn't picked up on it yet (that I have seen), since they tend to notice these systemwide IT fuckups

[palendae@linuxlab.sh]

@glyph I’ve had similar thoughts.

I grew up with and bought into the excitement over just how easily and how much knowledge was being shared. The innovations promised to expand so many horizons.

Then, those same innovations were molded into perhaps the most effective tools of capitalists to date. It *feels* like the wheel was jerked, especially with the launch of ChatGPT, but it’s been happening the whole while.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@glyph One very small microcosm of that, perhaps. Social media owners looking at Arab Spring and going "oops, how do we make sure that never happens again anywhere in the world?"

[baconandcoconut@freeradical.zone]

@glyph I like to think about it as an alternate future that we veered off the path of. Like we had this idea that computing was going to empower the masses, democratize access to information and power over the discourse. We didn't quite get it, but we tried a lot of times. I still have hope for our timeline.

[matt@toot.cafe]

@glyph I'm reminded of something I noticed while reading Steven Levy's _Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution_ (I wrote the full title because the second part is relevant here). Even by the time the book was being written in 1983, the revolution was clearly fleeting.

[baconandcoconut@freeradical.zone]

@glyph A thing that I take lot of encouragement from is knowing that for every famous moment of change and famous change maker (eg Rosa Parks) there were dozens, if not hundreds of earlier attempts that paved the way for the one time it was successful. I don't need people to visit the house I was born in in 50 years or ask me for advice on unrelated stuff. I am completely happy to be part of one of the hundred earlier attempts that paves the way.

[matt@toot.cafe]

@glyph I mean, the last chapter of part 2 (Hardware Hackers, about the Homebrew Computer Club, the beginning of Apple, etc.), is called "Secrets", and basically covers the shift from Homebrew to the new companies doing more or less business as usual. Same vibe with the ending of part 3 (Game Hackers, about Sierra, Broderbund, etc.), where, I think, Doug Carlson (Broderbund) is quoted saying something like, "I don't care if he gets rich, as long as I get richer."

[matt@toot.cafe]

@glyph Of course, Steven Levy couldn't have sold a book with a downer ending, so after covering Richard Stallman as "the last true hacker" all alone at the MIT AI lab, he wraps the book up with an optimistic ending about many more future generations of hackers or somesuch.

[pepverbsnouns@mastodon.art]

@glyph The accurate description makes more sense when you consider that the first computers as we know them were designed for business use, and ended up in the home as a profit avenue and a means of conditioning people to get used to them

Also the modularity of the original PCs were due to the limits of manufacturing and not for user convenience. If they could have locked down computers back then the way they are now, they would have.

TL;DR: Democratization of computing is a bug, not a feature

[alcinnz@floss.social]

@glyph To me it looks like worker-power shone through when it took serious skill to overcome computing's shortcomings. Which was a poor strategy that couldn't last.

Since then it looks like capital doubled-down on financializing tech.

[steltenpower@social.edu.nl]

@glyph follow @spiralganglion yet?

[luis_in_brief@social.coop]

@glyph 🫂 ✊🏽

[luis_in_brief@social.coop]

@glyph also, we can draw hope from how far we came, from such flawed beginnings. We can do it again, and hopefully learn from some of the lessons too.