Geek Stuff category archive
Geeking Out 0
Updating a VirtualBox virtual machine of Linux Mint with the Cinnamon desktop environment using the apt command in Magiea v. 8 under the Fluxbox window manager.
Aside:
If you are one of my two or three regular readers, you’ve probably figured out by now that I really like Fluxbox. It’s my preferred interface on all of my machines.
It’s light-weight, flexible, and highly configurable. And, out-of-the box, it doesn’t do desktop icons. (It can be made to do so if you really insist, but, really, menus exist for a reason.)
I like my pretty wallpaper pictures and don’t like having little pimples icons marring them.
But that’s just me.
It’s All about the Algorithm , , , 0
, , , and the algorithm is designed, above all else, to be addictive.
Influencers on the Inner Tubes 0
At Psychology Today Blogs, Psychotherapist Nicholas Balaisis explores some of the ways in which “social” media isn’t.
Cuban Revolt 0
Mark Cuban has had it with the arrogance of Silicon Valley’s “tech bros.”
I can’t say that I’m a big fan of either Mark Cuban or Bill Maher, but I rather think Cuban has a point.
Exhibit A, natch, would be Elon Musk.
The Crypto Con, Reprise 0
Bradley Murray, writing at Psychology Today Blogs, looks at why so many persons who should have known better–indeed, likely would have known better have they stopped to think for a moment–fell for the scam. I commend his piece to your attention.
Aside:
Some years ago, I listened to a Linux podcast–now podfaded. One of the hosts was all into bitcoin. I saw right-off that it was the most fiat of all fiat currencies, based on and backed by nothing other than believers’ faith, but he actually believed it was real.
(Broken link fixed.)
Farcical Recognition 0
Madison Square Garden Entertainment uses facial recognition to ban a mother from seeing the Rockettes with her daughter because of her day job.
Via C&L, which has commentary.
Click Bait 0
At Psychology Today Blogs, Nancy Darling discusses why we click what we do. A snippet:
Think about these three headlines:
1. Dogs need daily exercise.
2. Feeding dogs too many treats can lead to vomiting.
3. Throwing balls to dogs causes obsessive behavior.
Which would you click on?
Headline 1 is something you probably know—it doesn’t make you curious and it isn’t worrying, so you’re unlikely to seek more information.
Headline 2 is worrying, but not really surprising. I might click to see what they mean by “too many.” (I was surprised to read that my dog’s favorite liver treats are only supposed to be given a few at a time, several times a day. Oops.). A post on common human foods poisonous to dogs—chocolate, grapes—is more likely to get clicks.
But 3? I would definitely click. Why?
Folloq rhw link for her answer.
And, remember, “social” media isn’t.
Stray Thought 0
I near as I can tell, the most significant (and harmful) effect of “social” media has been to turn us into a society of exhibitionists, all jumping up and down screaming, “Look at me!“
Twits Own Twitter, Ad Hack Dept. 0
To borrow a term from Bob Cesca, more muskery. From Techdirt, via Above the Law:
It appears that Musk’s solution to this is to force people to cough up their private info.
It’s All about the Algorithm 0
At Psychology Today Blogs, Bonnie Zucker offers more evidence that “social” media isn’t. A snippet;
Geeking Out 0
Ubuntu MATE with the Fluxbox window manager. The wallpaper is from my camera, a picture taken at Norfolk’s Gardens by the Sea during a Lantern Asia exhibit.
It’s All about the Algorithm 0
At the San Francisco Chronicle, journalism professor Edward Wasserman argues that algorithms employed by “social” media to “attract eyeballs” and “promote engagement,” may serve to foment hate and hate-fueled violence by feeding those inclined to hatred and bigotry more of the same. He argues that, in too many cases, this has lead to hate-fueled violence and offers multiple examples thereof.
He also notes that the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, “when the internet was young,” shields internet platforms from liability for user-generated content.
Then he looks at the difference between then and now (emphasis added).
Nowadays, the argument (in a lawsuit he refers to elsewhere in the article–ed.) goes, the entire business of internet services has undergone a radical transformation. No longer docile whiteboards, social media are mega-businesses built on aggressively monitoring and manipulating user behavior — dangling incentives and promoting content with pitch-perfect lures, all to maximize the time users spend online and goose the ad revenue their engagement brings in.
I commend his article to your attention. And, remember, “social” media isn’t.