nescioquid

57 ms·

511.
by nescioquid 6y ago
> The brain is for thinking, not for remembering. An observation I used to see with more frequency, is that a part of thinking depends on noticing patterns and connections between things. If you don't have any working or long-terms
512.
by nescioquid 6y ago
Read the Graeber article I linked earlier in case you haven't and are interested. Bio-tech is one of the industries he specifically mentions as being somewhat a degenerate case with regard to this argument. In his essay, the the partic
513.
by nescioquid 6y ago
> its nonsensical to condemn the rate of progress because we didn't achieve a vision of science fantasy grounded in what people thought in the 1950s That wasn't really the claim. The idea is that the ends of technology have be
514.
by nescioquid 6y ago
Reading this litany of technologically-enabled consumer achievements, I thought of David Graeber who visited the disappointment we sometimes feel for how things actually went from mid-century to now. "[...]Where, in short, are the flyi
515.
by nescioquid 6y ago
I share your curiosity. I've marveled at people's diction in man-on-the-street interviews from the 30s, 40, 50s. Maybe the effect of an editorial filter or change in acculturation, or more likely co-determined by things I haven&#x
516.
by nescioquid 6y ago
I think it anachronistic to construe signs and graffito from the ancient world to be equivalent to modern advertisement, marketing, or public relations, which belong to the world Edward Bernays ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki