Most profesional digital graphic artists and writers do hold some level of resentment to the latest technological advancements, and other professions will soon undoubtedly join that sentiment as AI tech evolves into more job fields.
as usual it's a matter of bubbles: most of those you know might hold such resentment, most of those I know are in fact in love with the possibilities and are trying their hardest to leverage the new tools.
My 64yo "non digital" graphic artist aunt holds a very high level of resentment to the digital ones, while most of her old friends and ex-colleagues who embraced digital way back when are stil active in the space and happy one way or another, she is not.
But she is happy she can now get near-real-time two-way translation to/from languages she doesn't speak and is also happy to bury her head in the sand when I point out that's thanks to the same tech that will have an impact on the people who do simultaneous translations as a job.
You are just wrong. Look at the last few years and see how computer technology is being worshiped in the most destructive way. Instagram is literally bringing diseases to children.
This comes from a person for which the internet and computers are the love of life and everything. I'm excited about these times and the future. But every day that goes by I feel like this technology thing is going backwards, thanks to irresponsible, rich and careless people, and should be stopped right now. It will not stop, this is only the beginning.
By that logic, all technology that is misused is "a scourge". Metal and plastic technologies build weapons, computer technology controls bombs, pharmaceutical technologies make addictive drugs, food technologies contribute to diabetes epidemics.
I don't like this train of thought. I do like that there are the menonites and the amish in this world, but, for myself, I prefer a more intimate relationship with technology, for the lack of a better word. I like to think of technology as an extension of people: what the technology is and how we use it is then a reflection of our minds in their current stage of continuous evolution. If we have problems regulating dopamine, then we'll gravitate to technologies that allow us to experience those problems: not the other way around. Basically, I don't think of technology as external to society, rather to me it's a reflection.
This opinion will inevitably be seen as pessimistic tech doomerism, especially on forums like this.
And yet, for all the glory and benefit that we were promised modern technology would bring, the average person only enjoys a small sliver of it, while the rest is enjoyed by the 1% of humans in control, or corrupted by those who seek becoming part of the 1%.
We can access a world of information, but most of it is corrupted by (m|d)isinformation. In fact, most mainstream media is corrupted by it. We can communicate with family and loved ones around the world, at the expense of our data being exploited. We can buy and consume easier than ever before, but have to navigate a sea of poor quality products and scams. We have miraculous drugs, most of which are only accessible to the wealthy. We have self-driving cars and high-tech gadgets to entertain ourselves, which is great until the companies start exploiting us. And so on. The latest wave of AI tech is another step in this same direction, ramped up to levels we have never seen before.
I challenge anyone to steel man the argument that technology has been a net positive for humanity on a global scale, or that it will ever get better. I sure can't.
Is instagram really primarily "computer technology", or is it primarily a social phenomenon? Yes, the technology broadly enables that social phenomenon, but it doesn't drive it. I don't think instagram was engineered to be what it was today, users used it that way and Facebook happily picked that up and optimized.
But it's not like they somehow created a demand in people to compare their lives with others', present themselves as happier/more successful/better than they really are etc; it just gives them the tools to use it.
I advise the new CEO to immediately sell the brand again, take the "low seven-figure sum", and invest it in actual technology for a new company which can be called Rear Admiral.
Buried the lede - they have not yet actually paid for it and are still raising money.
As I said in the previous post about this, I support their efforts and applaud their enthusiasm. But they are making some very risky moves with their premature messaging. This could easily fall through and is just begging other parties with less sincere interest in the brand's legacy to take notice.
And it's "only" a "low seven-figure sum" involved here.
I'm quite frankly expecting a crash and burn with a lot of grasping-at-finances to try to keep whatever this becomes afloat, and/or another Atari-esque cash-grab-flailing-venture situation.
AFAICT from the article the takeover deal is agreed and in process, so assuming they end up able to pay on time and meet any other requirements I don't see how other interest matters?
Sometimes you have got to let things go. Clinging onto the past doesn't make sense in tech. Teaching kids today the wonders of that useless language called BASIC on 8 bit micros from the eighties amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. What next, slide rules?
If I had money and social media clout then I would buy SGI (Silicon Graphics) and get kids to learn the MIPS instruction set on refrigerator sized machines that needed their own power station. But no, got to let it go.
In a world where quality content or products disappear at an ever quicker pace, replaced with generic slop with no emotional attachment, functioning as just a way to extract something from you, the consumer, nostalgia becomes ever more valuable. Maybe not let everything go? Maybe letting things go is why we're at the current state of toxic consumerism that nobody likes.
I can easily see a new generation of Silicon Graphics machines powered by something like a MI300R (R because the amd64 cores would be replaced by RISC-V ones, which are the natural heirs to MIPS).
Or we could repurpose the SGI acronym to be Silicon Graphics and Intelligence to catch the AI wave.
And, of course, publish OpenIRIX under GPLv3. Including the screensavers.
I like to think that the enthusiasm for retro computing can make a clearing for innovative things to happen. I imagine such an environment can support values that aren't normally represented in fashionable, modern, commercial technology of today.
I think BASIC is not that bad. It is not so bad to learn a slide rule either, even if you do not use it very often and do not need it very often. Even if you use newer stuff, the older stuff is not worthless and sometimes avoids some of the disadvantages of newer stuff, so it is worth to learn many things.
Can someone briefly explain what the actual product will be? Not interested in going down a rabbit hole with a series of videos. I just want a straight to the point explanation.
(They do have Jeri Ellsworth and some OGs from Commodore signed up to be part of the team though, and seem to genuine love the brand and have nostalgia for the C64, so I have cautious optimism!)
It’s very odd that the first product announced is not a retro computer but some sort of anti social media product.
Doesn’t take long for directions to change.
Strikes me the main real opportunity was to bring the original C64 back to life, not to go to war with social media, which is so unrelated to retro computing and commodore that I shook my head and turned off the announcement video.
I like the enthusiasm for Retrofuturism, that if you didn't get the future that you were once promised 20-30 years ago you just create it anyway. I think that's a more humane alternative "to move fast and break things". I'm so sick of the latter and its negative effects on societies.
* Commodore B.V. only owns the Commodore trademark and logo. They do not own any of the Commodore source code, patents, designs, etc. They do not own the Amiga trademarks, logos, source code, ROMs, etc.
* The exact terms and status of the transaction are unclear, however it appears to be a letter of intent and contingent on raising sufficient funds, which has not yet been done.
32 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 54.4 ms ] threadTerrible messaging around a beloved brand.
My 64yo "non digital" graphic artist aunt holds a very high level of resentment to the digital ones, while most of her old friends and ex-colleagues who embraced digital way back when are stil active in the space and happy one way or another, she is not.
But she is happy she can now get near-real-time two-way translation to/from languages she doesn't speak and is also happy to bury her head in the sand when I point out that's thanks to the same tech that will have an impact on the people who do simultaneous translations as a job.
This comes from a person for which the internet and computers are the love of life and everything. I'm excited about these times and the future. But every day that goes by I feel like this technology thing is going backwards, thanks to irresponsible, rich and careless people, and should be stopped right now. It will not stop, this is only the beginning.
I don't like this train of thought. I do like that there are the menonites and the amish in this world, but, for myself, I prefer a more intimate relationship with technology, for the lack of a better word. I like to think of technology as an extension of people: what the technology is and how we use it is then a reflection of our minds in their current stage of continuous evolution. If we have problems regulating dopamine, then we'll gravitate to technologies that allow us to experience those problems: not the other way around. Basically, I don't think of technology as external to society, rather to me it's a reflection.
And yet, for all the glory and benefit that we were promised modern technology would bring, the average person only enjoys a small sliver of it, while the rest is enjoyed by the 1% of humans in control, or corrupted by those who seek becoming part of the 1%.
We can access a world of information, but most of it is corrupted by (m|d)isinformation. In fact, most mainstream media is corrupted by it. We can communicate with family and loved ones around the world, at the expense of our data being exploited. We can buy and consume easier than ever before, but have to navigate a sea of poor quality products and scams. We have miraculous drugs, most of which are only accessible to the wealthy. We have self-driving cars and high-tech gadgets to entertain ourselves, which is great until the companies start exploiting us. And so on. The latest wave of AI tech is another step in this same direction, ramped up to levels we have never seen before.
I challenge anyone to steel man the argument that technology has been a net positive for humanity on a global scale, or that it will ever get better. I sure can't.
But it's not like they somehow created a demand in people to compare their lives with others', present themselves as happier/more successful/better than they really are etc; it just gives them the tools to use it.
His methods were insane, but his words prophetic.
YouTuber claims to have received an offer to buy the Commodore brand
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215117
As I said in the previous post about this, I support their efforts and applaud their enthusiasm. But they are making some very risky moves with their premature messaging. This could easily fall through and is just begging other parties with less sincere interest in the brand's legacy to take notice.
I'm quite frankly expecting a crash and burn with a lot of grasping-at-finances to try to keep whatever this becomes afloat, and/or another Atari-esque cash-grab-flailing-venture situation.
If I had money and social media clout then I would buy SGI (Silicon Graphics) and get kids to learn the MIPS instruction set on refrigerator sized machines that needed their own power station. But no, got to let it go.
Yes, but it's too early for Commodore. Commodore is fondly remembered by Gen X, and Gen X is still alive and has the means to indulge its nostalgia.
Or we could repurpose the SGI acronym to be Silicon Graphics and Intelligence to catch the AI wave.
And, of course, publish OpenIRIX under GPLv3. Including the screensavers.
"Teaching kids today the wonders of that useless language called BASIC on 8 bit micros from the eighties amounts to cruel and unusual punishment."
I beg to differ. BASIC is a great introductory language for teaching kids the fundamentals of programming.
I like retro computers as much as the next person but selling dead technology and brands just doesn’t make sense.
(They do have Jeri Ellsworth and some OGs from Commodore signed up to be part of the team though, and seem to genuine love the brand and have nostalgia for the C64, so I have cautious optimism!)
Doesn’t take long for directions to change.
Strikes me the main real opportunity was to bring the original C64 back to life, not to go to war with social media, which is so unrelated to retro computing and commodore that I shook my head and turned off the announcement video.
* Commodore B.V. only owns the Commodore trademark and logo. They do not own any of the Commodore source code, patents, designs, etc. They do not own the Amiga trademarks, logos, source code, ROMs, etc.
* The exact terms and status of the transaction are unclear, however it appears to be a letter of intent and contingent on raising sufficient funds, which has not yet been done.