3 ms·

yes. we should resist the tech industry's relentless binary categorization of everything. "oh no! i couldnt find it in the dropdown! what ever shall i do?"

troupo 3y ago
Ah yes, "tech industry" and not, you know, humans categorizing everything for the purposes of storage and retrieval since the time immemorial
- slater- 3y ago
  i mean, obviously people organize stuff. but my point was about how computer interfaces are digital, and now we have a big industry that propagates digital interfaces, and their type of categorization is seeping into our day-to-day like never before, and i think it affects how people tend to think. and i don't like it.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Emphatically no. Before computers/internet that same categorization was always there. You just didn't know it existed, or couldn't do much about it. If your shop didn't carry a specific recording version (because it wasn't in their categories), you wouldn't know about it, or would have to spend significant time (and resources) to track it down. Before you could record music, people categorised everything else. The earliest library classification system we know of comes from Library of Alexandria, 300 years before Common Era. At every step of the way you were at the whims of the people categorising these things. Now, as we carry supercomputers in our pockets, people search for and expect computers to immediately retrieve more information than ever before. So if a person wants a 7", 45 RPM, Single Sided, Card Backed, Audio Postcard recording of Janis Joplin published by Pracownia Pocztówek Dźwiękowych R. Serafin [1], that person now reasonably expects to be able to find this recording. How do you expect this to work without "categorisation that the bad tech is imposing on us"? [1] https://www.discogs.com/release/19013644-Janis-Joplin-Aretha-Franklin-Cry-Baby-Let-It-Be https://www.discogs.com/release/19013644-Janis-Joplin-Aretha...
PhilipRoman 3y ago
Fully agreed. Personally, I have given up on all hierarchies and taxonomies, just let me have full text search (and maybe a basic tagging system).
- dylan604 3y ago
  That reads like the developer that says "I don't need a CMS" for my simple site. Then, after working on the site, realizes they just built a CMS
  - obscenitido 3y ago
    mega whoosh
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Nothing went over my head as you seem to think. I'm just commenting on the comment. Whoosh yourself
  - PhilipRoman 3y ago
    Not sure how this is related to reinventing a CMS... I've been successfully practicing this absence of taxonomy on my private files, they all now reside within one giant directory regardless of type. I usually throw in some useful keywords in the filename and so far full text search has allowed me to find everything in a fraction of a second.
- obscenitido 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - PhilipRoman 3y ago
    Can you please explain which comment here was sarcastic? I'm genuinely confused here.

troupo 3y ago

Ah yes, "tech industry" and not, you know, humans categorizing everything for the purposes of storage and retrieval since the time immemorial

slater- 3y ago
i mean, obviously people organize stuff. but my point was about how computer interfaces are digital, and now we have a big industry that propagates digital interfaces, and their type of categorization is seeping into our day-to-day like never before, and i think it affects how people tend to think. and i don't like it.
- troupo 3y ago
  Emphatically no. Before computers/internet that same categorization was always there. You just didn't know it existed, or couldn't do much about it. If your shop didn't carry a specific recording version (because it wasn't in their categories), you wouldn't know about it, or would have to spend significant time (and resources) to track it down. Before you could record music, people categorised everything else. The earliest library classification system we know of comes from Library of Alexandria, 300 years before Common Era. At every step of the way you were at the whims of the people categorising these things. Now, as we carry supercomputers in our pockets, people search for and expect computers to immediately retrieve more information than ever before. So if a person wants a 7", 45 RPM, Single Sided, Card Backed, Audio Postcard recording of Janis Joplin published by Pracownia Pocztówek Dźwiękowych R. Serafin [1], that person now reasonably expects to be able to find this recording. How do you expect this to work without "categorisation that the bad tech is imposing on us"? [1] https://www.discogs.com/release/19013644-Janis-Joplin-Aretha-Franklin-Cry-Baby-Let-It-Be https://www.discogs.com/release/19013644-Janis-Joplin-Aretha...

PhilipRoman 3y ago

Fully agreed. Personally, I have given up on all hierarchies and taxonomies, just let me have full text search (and maybe a basic tagging system).

dylan604 3y ago
That reads like the developer that says "I don't need a CMS" for my simple site. Then, after working on the site, realizes they just built a CMS
- obscenitido 3y ago
  mega whoosh
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Nothing went over my head as you seem to think. I'm just commenting on the comment. Whoosh yourself
- PhilipRoman 3y ago
  Not sure how this is related to reinventing a CMS... I've been successfully practicing this absence of taxonomy on my private files, they all now reside within one giant directory regardless of type. I usually throw in some useful keywords in the filename and so far full text search has allowed me to find everything in a fraction of a second.
obscenitido 3y ago
[flagged]
- PhilipRoman 3y ago
  Can you please explain which comment here was sarcastic? I'm genuinely confused here.