Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Lori Emerson (loriemerson@post.lurk.org)'s status on Friday, 03-Apr-2026 04:32:51 JST Lori Emerson

   finally, Wendell Berry's standards for technological innovation--truly as relevant now as they were in 1987 #othernetworks

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 03-Apr-2026 04:38:58 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • publius

     @publius Slavery was recognized at the time it was practiced as an abomination by all decent people.

     History classes just teach the awful prople of their times as though they were the only ones whose opinions counted.

   • Embed this notice
     publius (publius@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Friday, 03-Apr-2026 04:39:00 JST publius

     in reply to

     @loriemerson

     How far back do you have to go, to find a time when many people would have agreed that slavery fell in the category of "family and community relationships", and was even among the most important? Technological innovation disrupted that, by separating the processing of chemical energy into mechanical work from the human body. I for one have no desire to go back.

     #atomicpowertothepeople

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)'s status on Saturday, 04-Apr-2026 00:32:50 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Iron Bug
     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
     
   • Embed this notice
     Iron Bug (iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org)'s status on Saturday, 04-Apr-2026 00:32:51 JST Iron Bug

     in reply to
     @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.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)'s status on Saturday, 04-Apr-2026 02:37:09 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Iron Bug
     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
     
   • Embed this notice
     Iron Bug (iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org)'s status on Saturday, 04-Apr-2026 02:37:10 JST Iron Bug

     in reply to

     • Iron Bug
     • Alexandre Oliva
     @loriemerson @lxo it is not actual for many years already. the era of possible cheap development bsed on existing tehnologies 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.