4 ms·

I do hate the equivocating between Tiktok and other social media services. (eg: "Well, isn't TikTok just as bad as what Facebook is doing?") But that said, the

I do hate the equivocating between Tiktok and other social media services. (eg: "Well, isn't TikTok just as bad as what Facebook is doing?") But that said, the use of the term "poison pill" is excellent, and something that I've been using to describe modern tech in general. It'd be wrong to say that Google maps is "bad." Really, it's incredibly convenient. But it's got a poison pill: it tracks you obsessively, it can be used in a geofence warrant, etc. You could say the same for facebook. It's quite convenient to be able to contact everyone from your life, but it's got a poison pill: (Fill in all the complaints about Facebook over the last 10 years.) I bring this up only because we often get caught between a simple binary: are things better now, or were they better in the past? Usually it's both: one component of things was better in the past, and one component of things is better now.

BurningFrog 4y ago
You can still use the ways of the past (paper maps, etc). The fact that we don't, show we think the new ways are, on balance, better.
- everdrive 4y ago
  Maybe so, but I think a sugar/calorie analogy is useful here. "The fact that we [on average prefer unhealthy foods], show we think the new ways are, on balance, better." We might think so, but our preferences are often short-sighted and destructive.
- xmprt 4y ago
  I don't think anyone's arguing that the new ways are better. However, it's not clear that we're going in the right direction and instead we're stuck in a local maximum. Maybe if we took a step back and had mapping provided as an open source service with offline maps then we wouldn't have the current problems with Google Maps (real-time traffic data can be queried anonymously). Or maybe if we designed streets that were easier to navigate we wouldn't need maps in the first place.
- psyc 4y ago
  It shows that we don't think the poison pill is going to poison us.
- deltarholamda 4y ago
  >on balance, better I think this is somewhat true. It's definitely more accessible, which makes it better in the sense that more people can use it because it is simpler. It's not immediately obvious how to use a paper map. There's a lot of information in there that one has to either know or learn how to interpret. Sitting down with a stack of paper maps and planning out a route is more complicated than letting the googlemachine tell you what to do and how to get there. But, if you're a certain type of person, there is a definite thrill about making the plans, marking out your route, and doing this interactively with another person (who will be the navigator) that is a bit lost in the translation to digital. While the googlemachine may tell you about all of the restaurants or interesting sites along the way (that it knows about, or that have paid for prominent placement), it won't give the sense of adventure that "we'll figure it out when we get there" does, even if "figuring it out" means asking the waitress at the un-googleable diner over pie. Paper maps have a lot of advantages, but it takes work, and you have to be willing to accept that your seat-of-the-pants judgements about where to eat won't have the data-driven information of crowd-sourced reviews, so you might get a crappy meal or two.

BurningFrog 4y ago

You can still use the ways of the past (paper maps, etc). The fact that we don't, show we think the new ways are, on balance, better.

everdrive 4y ago
Maybe so, but I think a sugar/calorie analogy is useful here. "The fact that we [on average prefer unhealthy foods], show we think the new ways are, on balance, better." We might think so, but our preferences are often short-sighted and destructive.
xmprt 4y ago
I don't think anyone's arguing that the new ways are better. However, it's not clear that we're going in the right direction and instead we're stuck in a local maximum. Maybe if we took a step back and had mapping provided as an open source service with offline maps then we wouldn't have the current problems with Google Maps (real-time traffic data can be queried anonymously). Or maybe if we designed streets that were easier to navigate we wouldn't need maps in the first place.
psyc 4y ago
It shows that we don't think the poison pill is going to poison us.
deltarholamda 4y ago
>on balance, better I think this is somewhat true. It's definitely more accessible, which makes it better in the sense that more people can use it because it is simpler. It's not immediately obvious how to use a paper map. There's a lot of information in there that one has to either know or learn how to interpret. Sitting down with a stack of paper maps and planning out a route is more complicated than letting the googlemachine tell you what to do and how to get there. But, if you're a certain type of person, there is a definite thrill about making the plans, marking out your route, and doing this interactively with another person (who will be the navigator) that is a bit lost in the translation to digital. While the googlemachine may tell you about all of the restaurants or interesting sites along the way (that it knows about, or that have paid for prominent placement), it won't give the sense of adventure that "we'll figure it out when we get there" does, even if "figuring it out" means asking the waitress at the un-googleable diner over pie. Paper maps have a lot of advantages, but it takes work, and you have to be willing to accept that your seat-of-the-pants judgements about where to eat won't have the data-driven information of crowd-sourced reviews, so you might get a crappy meal or two.