Blog about the Slow Death of the Power User
- Thread starter kc1di
- Start date
CaffeineAddict
Well-Known Member
Very good article and obviously true.
This will be worth sharing along other standard texts like Linux is NOT Windows, Linux ate my RAM, linuxjourney and others.
This will be worth sharing along other standard texts like Linux is NOT Windows, Linux ate my RAM, linuxjourney and others.
Thunderpants
Active Member
An interesting read, thanks.
AlphaObeisance
Well-Known Member
For a moment I thought I was diagnosed.
"Someone who read error messages instead of dismissing them"
"Someone who, when something broke, treated it as a puzzle rather than a betrayal."
"technical literacy into a niche hobby for weirdos"
Now that I've got my clean bill of health; I'm off to enjoy the rest of this article lol. Thanks for sharing this heart breaking reminder that I'll probably die alone without ever having anyone who understood me lol!
P.S. I'm only 36, I'm too young to die!
"Someone who read error messages instead of dismissing them"
"Someone who, when something broke, treated it as a puzzle rather than a betrayal."
"technical literacy into a niche hobby for weirdos"
Now that I've got my clean bill of health; I'm off to enjoy the rest of this article lol. Thanks for sharing this heart breaking reminder that I'll probably die alone without ever having anyone who understood me lol!
P.S. I'm only 36, I'm too young to die!
Last edited:
CaffeineAddict
Well-Known Member
TL;DRSomebody please write a TL;DR.
The future of computing is doomed.
Everything will be centralized and fully controlled by companies and governments, people will defend it because people are stupid (e.g. indoctrinated not to think critically).
There will be no super users capable of controlling their devices because everything will be locked down with no ability to control what's installed or to change anything,
not even developers will be able to code what they desire because companies have their own frameworks and devs have no idea how to code outside of it.
This sounds extreme but it's already happening and leaning toward ultimate control.
Company: crush super users and convert them to customers that obey.
Customers: that sound's great, because you said you care about our security and we believe you.
Company: Anyone who disagrees is spreading conspiracy theory, don't listen to them.
Food shelter and services.
Brave new world.
You get the idea...
AlphaObeisance
Well-Known Member
Somebody please write a TL;DR.
The ULTIMATE TLDR
I'll just say that when this day comes, I'll gladly walk away to build a shack in the woods with all the freedom seeds I managed to store away for the winter
. Maybe I'll turn the old cabinet into a wood burning stove while I fight off the I-Robots lol
wendy-lebaron
Well-Known Member
jesse smith saying he was going to write something similar. when he can't or won't even proofread. his own writing on his own website!
i read some of the blog article. sometimes i consider myself "power user." but the "power over only my computer." because otherwise i'm helpless. real life sucks most of the time, you know.
are all computer programmers "power users"? or are all "power users" involved in developing software?
just now i was looking. in reference of "gmic" website or in the "pixl'us" forum. for a way to add alpha channel. to an image which doesn't have one. because a "gmic" operation removed the alpha channel. without calling "imagemagick" for it. it looks like i will have to use two programs. for something that looks deceptively simple. because of a bug the developers of "gmic" don't fix. because "photos aren't expected to have alpha channels" and other weak excuses like that. i'm sorry but i had to reveal some frustration at my end.
i read some of the blog article. sometimes i consider myself "power user." but the "power over only my computer." because otherwise i'm helpless. real life sucks most of the time, you know.
are all computer programmers "power users"? or are all "power users" involved in developing software?
just now i was looking. in reference of "gmic" website or in the "pixl'us" forum. for a way to add alpha channel. to an image which doesn't have one. because a "gmic" operation removed the alpha channel. without calling "imagemagick" for it. it looks like i will have to use two programs. for something that looks deceptively simple. because of a bug the developers of "gmic" don't fix. because "photos aren't expected to have alpha channels" and other weak excuses like that. i'm sorry but i had to reveal some frustration at my end.
My favorite line.
I stand by something I've stated before...
The more I know about how technology works, the more I'm amazed that it works at all.
I don't get angry when tech fails. Given all the obstructions conquered to make a modern computer atop the modern web, I'm surprised that it works as well as it does.
An atom is maybe 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers. An entire transistor is 2 to 3 nanometers.
Depending on who you choose as your expert, which is a strange thing to say, Moore's Law has been dead for a decade (or more). Well, some argue that it's not dead but evolving. I, however, posit that laws like this do not evolve but may be supplanted by newer laws. The law itself wasn't fuzzy. The people who interpreted it are doing so in a fuzzy manner. Laws about the nature of the universe shouldn't be fuzzy. They're either true or they are not true. If they are not true, they are not laws and never were laws. They were just accurate statements made in a specific period of time.
The more I know about how technology works, the more I'm amazed that it works at all.
I don't get angry when tech fails. Given all the obstructions conquered to make a modern computer atop the modern web, I'm surprised that it works as well as it does.
An atom is maybe 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers. An entire transistor is 2 to 3 nanometers.
Depending on who you choose as your expert, which is a strange thing to say, Moore's Law has been dead for a decade (or more). Well, some argue that it's not dead but evolving. I, however, posit that laws like this do not evolve but may be supplanted by newer laws. The law itself wasn't fuzzy. The people who interpreted it are doing so in a fuzzy manner. Laws about the nature of the universe shouldn't be fuzzy. They're either true or they are not true. If they are not true, they are not laws and never were laws. They were just accurate statements made in a specific period of time.
Similar threads
