3 ms·

>What is a supercomputer in your pocket, with access to a significant portion of the sum total of human knowledge, good for, for most people? >Playing fucking

>What is a supercomputer in your pocket, with access to a significant portion of the sum total of human knowledge, good for, for most people? >Playing fucking candy crush. The same could be said for any entertainment that people get via computers, and none of it is really relevant. If they only use wikipedia once a month from their phone in a situation where they wouldn't have used it at all, I count that as a win. Sure, they might spent 99.9% of their time on the device for entertainment purposes... But that other .1% is still enriching them. And I suspect the numbers are quite far from that.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
I get your gist, but if someone spends 99% of their time playing Candy Crush and 1% using Wiki, it's not a net win for them vs spending 50% of their time doing nothing and the other 50% reading a book instead.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  But before phones, did those folks read books and do nothing? Or is it more likely that they watched football and soap operas on TV?
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    It's been awhile, but as I recall, people weren't watching football and soap operas everywhere, they couldn't. The modern equivalent is having those to go. That's not even taking into account addictions and misinformation.
    - dragontamer 9y ago
      No. People went to Bars (or horse racing tracks) and didn't go home for that.
      - tlarkworthy 9y ago
        Thats a good point, kids today have reduced binge drinking and smoking, the stuff you could do on the go in the old days.
  - addicted 9y ago
    Football and Soap Operas are simply not comparable to the kind of addiction the smartphone people are able to build into their products. Facebook has an army of phds whose only goal is to make sure Facebook’s users spend another few percent of their time on Facebook. And Facebook with its social interaction, and in depth knowledge of each user, can actively drive its users to spend more time on it in ways no other medium has been able to so far. And it’s not just Facebook. It’s oretty much every tech company, barring maybe Apple.
    - bcoates 9y ago
      I think you're really underestimating the shocking amount of television people used to watch. Many baby boomers have spent most of their adult life spending almost every free moment in front of a TV.
      - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        The number is inherently less because you can't watch TV in the car, you can't watch TV on the bus, you can't watch TV at work, etc... Now that happens everywhere. Use levels of TV vs smartphones aren't close. The comparison is simply absurd because of the nature of the technology.
    - pavel_lishin 9y ago
      My point wasn't so much about addiction, it's that if someone is determined to kill time, they'll find a way to do it.
    - rock_hard 9y ago
      You say that as if it were a fact. Can you please provide sources for this!
anigbrowl 9y ago
Sure, they might spent 99.9% of their time on the device for entertainment purposes... But that other .1% is still enriching them. This assumes only positive externalities. The problem with things like Candy Crush is that there might be a net negative for the user in the highly engineered feedback loop. Finding ways to waste time isn't unique to computers - you could subscribe to a newspaper because everyone else does, but only look at the sports results or the crossword. For that matter I can read books abusively as well as informatively - computers aren't the cause of people wasting time or making bad choices. You could argue that they are more highly engineered to keep people making such choices in the name of profit, though. Admittedly people have leveled the same critique at novels, and they're not entirely wrong. Now I agree that most people actually get more real use of out their smartphones than just playing games, but I do also agree with the top post that we encourage people to spend their money powerful pocket computers and then frequently those devices end up as conduits for advertising to buy more stuff. It's not that people are bad for playing Candy Crush, but that we're glorifying the people who make Candy Crush because of their ability to cash in, while many other worthy smartphone projects go underdeveloped/underused because they don't have a billion-dollar story attached.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

I get your gist, but if someone spends 99% of their time playing Candy Crush and 1% using Wiki, it's not a net win for them vs spending 50% of their time doing nothing and the other 50% reading a book instead.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
But before phones, did those folks read books and do nothing? Or is it more likely that they watched football and soap operas on TV?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  It's been awhile, but as I recall, people weren't watching football and soap operas everywhere, they couldn't. The modern equivalent is having those to go. That's not even taking into account addictions and misinformation.
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    No. People went to Bars (or horse racing tracks) and didn't go home for that.
    - tlarkworthy 9y ago
      Thats a good point, kids today have reduced binge drinking and smoking, the stuff you could do on the go in the old days.
- addicted 9y ago
  Football and Soap Operas are simply not comparable to the kind of addiction the smartphone people are able to build into their products. Facebook has an army of phds whose only goal is to make sure Facebook’s users spend another few percent of their time on Facebook. And Facebook with its social interaction, and in depth knowledge of each user, can actively drive its users to spend more time on it in ways no other medium has been able to so far. And it’s not just Facebook. It’s oretty much every tech company, barring maybe Apple.
  - bcoates 9y ago
    I think you're really underestimating the shocking amount of television people used to watch. Many baby boomers have spent most of their adult life spending almost every free moment in front of a TV.
    - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
      The number is inherently less because you can't watch TV in the car, you can't watch TV on the bus, you can't watch TV at work, etc... Now that happens everywhere. Use levels of TV vs smartphones aren't close. The comparison is simply absurd because of the nature of the technology.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    My point wasn't so much about addiction, it's that if someone is determined to kill time, they'll find a way to do it.
  - rock_hard 9y ago
    You say that as if it were a fact. Can you please provide sources for this!

anigbrowl 9y ago

Sure, they might spent 99.9% of their time on the device for entertainment purposes... But that other .1% is still enriching them. This assumes only positive externalities. The problem with things like Candy Crush is that there might be a net negative for the user in the highly engineered feedback loop. Finding ways to waste time isn't unique to computers - you could subscribe to a newspaper because everyone else does, but only look at the sports results or the crossword. For that matter I can read books abusively as well as informatively - computers aren't the cause of people wasting time or making bad choices. You could argue that they are more highly engineered to keep people making such choices in the name of profit, though. Admittedly people have leveled the same critique at novels, and they're not entirely wrong. Now I agree that most people actually get more real use of out their smartphones than just playing games, but I do also agree with the top post that we encourage people to spend their money powerful pocket computers and then frequently those devices end up as conduits for advertising to buy more stuff. It's not that people are bad for playing Candy Crush, but that we're glorifying the people who make Candy Crush because of their ability to cash in, while many other worthy smartphone projects go underdeveloped/underused because they don't have a billion-dollar story attached.