Top
Best
New

Posted by zer0tonin 7 hours ago

Attention is all you have(alicegg.tech)
492 points | 146 comments
econ 5 hours ago|
The Mosaic browser (1993) had full text history search.

We then got a bookmark system that was every bit as terrible as a web directory.

It stayed that way. The delicious search revenue made organizing websites uninteresting. That obscure website you enjoyed a decade ago but don't even remember, they had lots of traffic like you. No point updating or keeping it online. You can't have rss in Firefox but here is a Facebook like button in your address bar in stead.

I've tried to maintain the bookmark menu but I rarely use it since everything is dead. Why aren't browsers storing a text version of the bookmark? Did people in 1993 have more resources than us? Should I be afraid it grows to a few GB over the decades?

A good few dead websites have a backup some place but there is no automation to find it. If you had a string of text from a page you might be able to search for it. If the page found is highly similar we might automate the process to have alternative location for bookmarks with a nice warning dialog.

nostrademons 3 hours ago||
Bookmarks died because most humans are allergic to having to do bookkeeping and cleanup tasks that are incidental to what they really want to do.

We see that over and over again, in a bunch of non-tech fields. My kids never want to clean up their toys; they will pull out new ones, but it is a struggle to get them into the habit of putting the old ones away first. My parents used to keep a notebook with every gas fill-up they made; nobody born after about 1990 does that anymore. We were taught how to balance a checkbook in elementary school; basically nobody does that anymore, we put everything on autopay and if you are diligent you check a statement or import it into Quicken once a month (most people don't even do that, they have no idea what they are spending and predictably, usually no money left over). GMail succeeded because instead of putting your mail in folders, you just leave it in one lump with Google and rely on full-text search. A lot of Zoomer computer users don't even know what files and folders are, they just use apps, which take them straight to what they want to do and don't offer things like possession of your own data.

Back in the (~early 2010s) days when Google still allowed internal innovation, there were recurrent demos produced by engineers of full-text search over your web history, though of course it was your web history as stored by Google and none of this was local. It never became a product, largely because users are too lazy to go to a separate search product just for your history, or because they're too lazy to check a separate box saying "Search my history". Instead I think web history became a ranking input to general search and it would mix in results that you frequently visited to the general results, which honestly I think was a more useful approach.

bognition 2 hours ago|||
That and google had a major interest in killing bookmarks. Bookmarks were actively competing with google search traffic, so they put in a lot of effort to get you to stop using them. Why bookmark something when you can just search for it.
nostrademons 2 hours ago||
Eh, it's true that Google's incentives aren't really aligned with bookmarking tools, but the magnitude of the effect is much less than you're thinking of. Basically 100% of Google's revenues come from commercial-seeking queries, cases where the user has a purchasing intent before they came to the search engine. All of the non-commercial uses - coding, random facts, research, education, navigational queries, etc - are just loss-leaders so that your fingers automatically reach for Google when you're searching for lawyers, contractors, home-improvement fixtures, apps, furniture, flowers, restaurants, consumer electronics, etc. Google (of the 2010s certainly, but also true now) considered Amazon to be its primary competition, not Yahoo or del.icio.us.

They put precisely zero effort into killing bookmarks. I know because I was there, and probably would've been tasked with doing it. Well, that and because bookmarks still exist and I can still use them. They also put zero effort into improving bookmarks or making them easier for you to use, but it's death by inaction and consumer choice, not by anything Google did.

aucisson_masque 29 minutes ago||
I don’t know if they did or didn’t try to kill bookmarks.

But on the commercial incentives, it does make sense for them to kill it.

Companies pay good advertisement so they show up first on the search result when a user want to find them.

Eg you want to go to carglass website: you type carglass in google and the company will most likely pay Google to show up first in the ads section because competitors are trying to sway away customers from them. If they didn’t outbid their competitors, even though the customer want to go to carglass, he will click on first result and may end up buying from their competitor without even noticing.

That wouldn’t happen if people had put carglass.com website in bookmark.

nostrademons 14 minutes ago||
Google doesn't show ads on navigational queries because of the potential trademark-infringement legal issues that could result from recommending a competitor when somebody searches for a trademark.

Search for [carglass], no ads. Search for [facebook], no ads. Search for [spotify], no ads. Search for [american airlines], no ads. All of these would be very desirable queries to advertise a competitor on.

(IIRC they've gone back and forth on this depending on what the lawyers thought they could get away with; ISTR when Bing launched Microsoft would run ads on [google] that pointed to Bing. It's been a long time since I've seen an ad on a navigational query though.)

xg15 2 hours ago||||
> My kids never want to clean up their toys; they will pull out new ones, but it is a struggle to get them into the habit of putting the old ones away first.

Yes, as kids probably always did since the invention of the children's room. The usual solution was to educate - and push - them until they hopefully started to understand the benefits that an orderly room can give you and maybe even had some fun thinking of a good ordering scheme by themselves.

Only in tech would the response to kids being too lazy to clean up their rooms be "oh well obviously keeping your stuff in order is an unworkable strategy".

I remember that, back when we were in school, we would actually spend a lot of time structuring the bookmark folder, making elaborate menu hierarchies. Doing this the first time was fun.

The problem was, this lasted about until the first time the PC had to be reinstalled or someone switched the browser or something else caused the bookmarks menu to be lost. Redoing all that stuff after it got wiped was much more of a chore than doing it initially.

But this would be my takeaway here: If software developers want their users to manage their own ordering schemes or use customization features, make it easy and convenient to do - and for the love of everything, threat the resulting bookmark trees, settings files etc as critical data that has to be synced, backed-up etc. If it has to be redone after a few updates or a crash, then no one will use it.

(Incidentally, tech companies have absolutely no problem "educating" their users if the behavior is something they care about. I'm pretty sure, no product or marketing person ever said "oh well, it sure would be nice if all our users made accounts or installed our app, but they're far too lazy for that, so that's a nonstarter...")

nemothekid 1 hour ago||
>If software developers want their users to manage their own ordering schemes or use customization features, make it easy and convenient to do

This is akin to telling parents that if they want to their children to clean their rooms, you should make it easy and convenient to do. Obviously this is non-sensical: if you make a mess it might be hard and inconvenient work. Thats why kids don't do it!

I find some tech criticisms to be simply inane; the tech companies are not going to absorb the costs of educating users or fixing unworkable strategies. Not because Bezos needs to buy another yacht, but because the companies that try to do that all die before they get big. There is a giant graveyard of startups who have tried to be the "responsible and patient parent", and they have all died. Users don't want to put up with it, and if given the option will run to the company that just handles everything for them with a subscription fee or reselling their data.

octantes 1 hour ago||
Yeah, imo the only way this is changing at all is if for some reason organization is inherent to the value offered. I guess Notion kinda did that, Obsidian too.
goalieca 3 hours ago||||
i had invested a lot into del.icio.us and other similar systems but what really killed bookmarks for me was the instability of URIs and how hard it was to search for the right page based on a title or bookmark name and not the contents. At the time, google was really really effective at search.
saxelsen 44 minutes ago||||
I use Innoreader as a database of websites/blogposts I want to reference or read again later.

I only use it to bookmark it into the database so I can search it up later.

Firefox had a tool partnership with an app that did exactly this, but unfortunately it was put in the grave last year (now I know why).

riazrizvi 2 hours ago||||
As an alternative to Gmail can I recommend Hotmail? I recently created an account and a nice feature is that all new email goes into the Junk folder by default. It was obviously designed by a misanthropic hermit, but the benefit is that your emails drop to almost zero. It's a bit of a bummer if you had a job opportunity or a friend tries to contact you, but on the other hand, fewer distractions.

Crazy times.

TomJansen 1 hour ago||||
Was I actually the only kid who liked cleaning up toys and sorting Knex and Lego and stuff?
skyberrys 1 hour ago||
No, I was the kid over there playing librarian and sorting all my books and games by author and year. Legos and Knex were also prime sorting targets, but the real joy came from getting random jars of buttons or beads. Getting one of those shelves with 100 tiny drawers was like a recipe for heaven.
nemomarx 3 hours ago||||
I'm curious about the history - what would you use a list of gas fill ups for? Price tracking?
bluGill 2 hours ago|||
I gave up on my book because after a couple decades I didn't have a good answer. Sure I could brag about the one full-up where I got 57mpg, and I knew about the one where it was only 36 - who cares.

Back in the 1930s the book was probably useful because changes in mpg were a sign you needed to do a tuneup early. But back then everybody knew a tuneup was every few months and once in a while something went off in between. Cars are a lot more reliable.

panzagl 3 hours ago||||
To figure out MPG you were getting.
nostrademons 3 hours ago||
That was the main one, and also in case you ever ended up with car trouble you had a record of every place you had filled up and every time you had the car serviced. It was also financial: you could tell how much you were spending on gas, whether gas prices were going up or down, which stations had the cheapest gas, etc.

Nowadays a lot of this is recoverable from your credit card statements (though again, I don't know anybody who actually does this), but in the 80s you would usually pay cash for gas.

alex0015 2 hours ago|||
A friend of mine in high school (2012) was required to add to the notebook his parents kept in the car whenever he got gas. I wonder if his parents still do that kind of record keeping now that the car tells you its MPG, gas price historical data is easily accessible, and card purchases are tagged as "Gas" automatically in the banks that I use.

I do actually audit each transaction in my card statements each month to look briefly at the categories of spending I use most. Gas is a category, but that number doesn't really change my behavior. It's just a data point.

snohobro 2 hours ago|||
I’ve been keeping a spreadsheet of all my fillups. Mostly because I was curious about my monthly spend on gas with it having gone up so much. But it’s been interesting to see the mpg over time.
giardini 1 hour ago|||
1. To monitor gas mileage primarily. Any sudden decline in gasoline mileage can warn of impending engine component failure. [I haven't experienced it but I suppose it could also warn of a repair error, e.g., if you failed to put a new air filter cartridge in to replace the old one (a major oversight but nonetheless possible) then it is likely that your mileage would go up suddenly. One would have to question whether the better mileage was b/c, say, you just switched to Shell gasoline or instead did something wrong when you recently changed the air filter?!]

2. keeping receipts ensures that if there is a problem and your engine is damaged, then you can show where you bought the fuel, oil or component and get recompense. This is rare but does happen and it can be a costly repair. Examples are:

- bad gasoline - usually debris or water. Can stop fuel flow and cost you replacement of a gas filter at the least.

- incorrect oil change - you pay for an oil change but they don't put on a new oil filter or they add the wrong kind of oil or they add too little oil or they add too much oil. Don't discount the last one: too much oil can damage some engines seriously. I once had a dealer change my car's oil. Prior to service I explicitly warned the mechanic that the engine was a rare model and required less oil than most. Nonetheless he overfilled it. Luckily I spotted the difference immediately b/c the engine ran like shite right out of the garage. I made a freeway U-turn,drove back in, re-explained the car's needs and insisted they drain off the overfill and let me check it. The mechanic tried to cover his ass by treating it as another "crazy customer" but I just told his companions that a) he'd fucked up and b) I had specifically warned him about the problem earlier so c) they'd better keep an eye on him - he wasn't as good as they were.

3. If you sell a car, buyers love getting the records proving that you bought good oil/gas, performed maintenance, etc. FWIW most buyers do not continue to maintain such records in my experience.

I don't maintain a log book and I know only one person who does. But I file receipts for gas, parts, fluids, filters and major maintenance for each vehicle.

It might appear that all this is good reason to buy an EV but you've got the same problems as do ICUs. Suppose you pull into a facility in Kansas for a recharge as a thunderstorm rolls in. While you're eating lunch the facility is struck by lightning and the transient currents fry one or more parts on you EV. The recharge station is unlikely to be willing to pay your repairs unless you have proof you were there during a malfunction.

foobarian 27 minutes ago||
I did this for a couple of years but after my mileage didn't budge regardless of summer/winter/car age/mechanical work I got bored and stopped recording :-)
hexasquid 3 hours ago|||
It all went wrong when writing was introduced, the lazy kids became addicted to letting the technology take place of their natural human memory.
weinzierl 3 hours ago|||
W3C's Amaya browser [1] was as much an editor as it was a browser. Production and consumption were supposed to be symmetrical. This was the promise of the web.

Instead we turned it into a worse version of television, where you still only consume passively what is fed to you while being watched and analysed.

[1] https://dev.w3.org/Amaya/amaya/AmayaPage.html

abc3354 5 hours ago|||
Related : Hister https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49743097
kccqzy 2 hours ago|||
I am pretty sure early versions of the Safari browser (in the 2000s) did in fact store a full-text version of every webpage in the history and allow you to search that. I even remember looking at the plist files where Safari stored all the extracted text.

I relied on that a lot until one day a random system update deleted all my old browsing history.

amelius 1 hour ago|||
But today you can just say: "Agent, please record all my page visits. Store the page texts in a file. When I do a search, ... etc."
gum_wobble 49 minutes ago|||
I solved it with Obsidian Web Clipper
cesarsk 3 hours ago|||
Do you guys know if there is an extension that textifies most of the internet?
fwip 2 hours ago||
There's a lot of reader-mode extensions out there - I'm not sure which ones are good nowadays.
FuriouslyAdrift 1 hour ago|||
Then there was the endless attempts at the "semantic web"
bflesch 4 hours ago|||
Your chain of thoughts is dangerous, because once you realize that can you can cache website content locally, you might also want to share this cache with your friends so that traffic is reduced ;)
6510 1 hour ago||
It can be optional. The owner of the website should get to decide what people do with their stuff. They can provide a tracker and (as long as it is alive) chose if to burn its own bandwidth or point you at a seed. [Dynamic] ads can still be inserted and blocked as usual. Should be funny to make money from a website that you don't even host anymore. Default browsers can also respect legal take down orders if they are published on the website.

A whole different world from posts vanishing into the social media memory hole.

AlienRobot 3 hours ago||
But what if they update the webpage to something completely different from what you bookmarked? Wouldn't you like to have access to the most up-to-date version always? /s
6510 1 hour ago||
When `Cache-Control: max-age` expires a new copy should be fetched. Old version can be versioned by date.
rvshchwl 5 hours ago||
I cut out Social Media earlier this year, and it's been one of the best decisions I've made. Part of why I started was remembering that we didn't have doom-scrolling apps before smartphones. The change has been tremendous since I've been trying to go back to more "intentional" media. When I find myself distracted and wanting to pick up my phone, I realize there isn't really anything on it for me to do and am forced to just put it away. So I've started getting into the habit of keeping a book on me wherever I go. I've read 4 books this year!
shant_extry 5 hours ago||
That realization - that you realize there's really nothing [worthwhile] for you to do - after getting over that initial break from your phone, is a magical threshold that I wish I'd crossed a lot sooner. The time and energy it frees up is so powerful, no matter what else you choose to do with it. Reading 4 books is incredible on its own but in this day and age it (and any other deliberate, non-scrolling activity) has incredible effects on your attention and emotional-balance, which I'm sure you've noticed.
itsalwaysgood 4 hours ago|||
Our minds seem to be more like LLMs than we probably like to imagine.

In some areas of life, technology and society have forced us to be more aware, of more things, more of the time. Our 'context' is filled with more things to consider, and attention is the window in. Sleep, schedule, and planning, helps to reset us and use context wisely.

Modern life forces a lot of context in, but we still have a lot of control over the rest of our daily 'attention windows' (like cutting out the excessive attention-grabbing media). It's kind of a rigid way to think, but there seems to be something there. We do have a saying afterall: 'what's on your mind?'

I appreciated the article: it was a good reminder to manage time wisely.

jolt42 4 hours ago|||
Ecclesiastes would be an appropriate read.
TeMPOraL 3 hours ago|||
I'll object to "no doomscrolling" a little bit. My first case of doomscrolling was on my PC, in high-school, in early years of Facebook. It happened not with social feeds, but with news. I had this stupid idea that I need to follow news to "stay informed", and it took me I think a good year before I noticed I'm constantly sad, depressed, angry at, or afraid for the world. When I noticed, I cut news out completely. Mood massively improved, and two decades later, I still don't regret a thing. Plus, I realized some time later that reading news doesn't make you more informed, but more disinformed.
cesarsk 3 hours ago||
Why do you think reading news makes you more disinformed? Because it makes you aware of what you don't know enough?
nostrademons 3 hours ago|||
The sum total of things going on in the world is far more than any one human being can process. The function of the news media (either human or algorithmic) is to cherry-pick the stories that are presented to users. Because they are cherry-picked, they necessarily present a distorted picture of reality. In the days of the big-3 monopoly of broadcast TV, they were usually cherry-picked to support national unity and common American culture; as the news media got more competitive, they started cherry-picking ones that would hold viewer attention ("if it bleeds, it leads"), and then as we switched to Internet news and algorithmic feeds they are algorithmically chosen to maximize engagement.
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago|||
Because:

- in bulk, it creates distorted view of reality, by overemphasizing dramatic events;

- individually, approximately half the headlines are bald-faced lies, and the other half merely click bait

- articles usually correct the lies in headlines, but in every case I could independently verify, the text was presenting heavily distorted view of the events

Some of that can be canceled out by following multiple independent sources, but frankly, doing that is IMO one of the biggest ways to waste your life I can think of. Not worth the effort. Meme sites have similar ROI, and are much more fun.

bluGill 2 hours ago|||
I cut Facebook a while ago when I realized they wouldn't let me at what I want it for.

I'm glad Facebook told me about my classmate Eddie's death. We would never be friends but we knew each other and my life was better for having him in a class years ago. My only other chance is hope that it is discussed at a class reunion in a few years.

However Facebook wants to give me the 'you won't believe who is harming our children' overblown scare because that is what sells. I need to cut that garbage out of my life (others have discussed why in detail). Realistically Facebook has about five minutes of useful stuff per day, which doesn't make them money. However now I'm out so they get less.

zeroonetwothree 3 hours ago|||
HN is social media :)
hk__2 2 hours ago|||
Yes but old-style social media, not the ones where youn dooscroll cat videos. Here we’re obviously talking about those.
hypfer 3 hours ago|||
Yes. This pedantic gotcha that misses the point is amazing proof of that.

Thanks for demonstrating.

chistev 4 hours ago|||
What are those 4 books?
rvshchwl 4 hours ago||
1. Continuous discovery habits by Teresa Torres

2. Life at the speed of play by Mark Pincus

3. The Antidote by Oliver Burkeman

4. Autobiography of a Yogi by Pramahansa Yogananda

code-blooded 4 hours ago|||
I have followed that up with removing all algorithmical feeds from my life (I recommend News Feed Eradicator extension for that) and then setting phone to Focused mode from 9am till 2pm. It's been life changing.

I thought people at work would be mad, but everybody adjusted instantly.

Next up I'd like to pre-plan blocks of focused work - an idea I got from the Deep Work book.

astura 5 hours ago|||
You're on social media right now, Hacker News is social media.
usefulcat 4 hours ago|||
There's a big difference between a forum where every visitor sees the same front page (more or less) and something like Facebook where every visitor sees a list of things curated just for them.

If you are only exposed to points of view that you already agree with, over time it's easy to forget that some people have other points of view (which are actually not always completely ridiculous, despite what you may have heard). Note that rage bait does not count as a divergent point of view; it's almost always a cherry-picked caricature, not anything close to a good faith representation.

This might not sound like such a big deal, but do that for billions of individuals and you have the perfect recipe for the political polarization we are currently enjoying.

nostrademons 3 hours ago||
It's less of a difference than you might suspect. The personalized curation is in which forum you choose to visit. HN is quite niche by numbers; it's a lot smaller than say bodybuilding.com or even AR15.com. That you choose to go to news.ycombinator.com is your personalization, and also skews your view on the world. Most of the world is interested in very different stuff.
usefulcat 43 minutes ago|||
On one hand, you do have a point, if perhaps a somewhat technical one. OTOH, have you seen what passes for political discourse on FB?

Calling it a dumpster fire would be an insult to dumpsters.

sandblast 1 hour ago|||
Isn't that the whole point? That I have chosen to visit that and personalize? Otherwise, you could say all personalization skews the worldview, and you'd be technically right (the worst kind of right).
nostrademons 24 minutes ago||
When you're talking political polarization on a societal level, it's a distinction without a difference. The distinction is that when you personalize by site, it's an explicit coarse-grained choice by the individual. When you personalize by algorithm, it's an implicit fine-grained choice by the individual, which is then aggregated and turned into an explicit stream of content by the algorithm. In both cases, you are adapting the content someone sees by what they want to see.

The sort of national unity that we took for granted between 1945-1995 (and to some extent from 1920-1945) was explicitly manufactured by mass media. Here technology presented the same content to all people, because it was cheaper to do it that way. Before the invention of consumer radios in 1920, we had a similar political polarization as we do today, if not even moreso. Also the Federal government was significantly weaker, lacking even powers like direct taxation, let alone the mass surveillance it has now.

vegnus 5 hours ago||||
Yeah, forums were social media too, but I dont remember people having such a negative reaction to forums as they do now to what replaced them, largely.
hnlmorg 4 hours ago|||
Forums have their share of negativity too. HN included.

There was always this curve where a forum would be fun because it was a small group of likeminded individuals. And as it got larger, more trolls came in, more newbies with different interests, and others that might not have shared the same cultural mentality that started that forum. And the forum would begin to shed its original members who draw the crowd. Then what’s left is people who have less interest in the community spirit. And that forum starts to shrink again as more people become disinterested and more infighting happens.

Good moderation can help but nonetheless I’ve seen this happen across dozens of forums. In IRC channels, newsgroups and so on too. So it’s not even a phenomena specific to HTTP message boards. Some communities even have a terms for it like “the eternal September”.

To be clear, this is a separate problem to the addictive design of modern platforms. That’s a whole other level negativity. But people seem to forget that the internet could be a cesspit even before Zuckerberg poisoned the well.

layer8 4 hours ago|||
Forums were best before up/downvoting/likes/reactions and before sort-by-most-popular became a thing. When they were simply a discussion in historical order (possibly threaded) by topic. HN is halfway down the engagement slope with its voting mechanism, its inability to track which comments you already read, and its locking of discussions after a day or two. The last two points prevent long-form asynchronous discussions. The first prevents a shared and stable discussion order, and diverts attention capacity to giving/receiving up/downvotes and to one’s karma level.
andrewrn 2 hours ago||||
You know what they mean though. Don't be so dense. This feed is not algorithmically built to maximize engagement, and it has no eye-catching and bait-facilitating photos. Meaningfully different.
mahogany 4 hours ago||||
Some people will quibble with the definition, but I agree with the spirit of this. I have pruned all my web traffic down to a few sites, and Hacker News and Reddit are the two that remain where I feel that pull for my attention. Hacker News is better than, say, TikTok, but I still find myself reaching for it to distract me from other things in my life. It is "easy". Like 24 hour news, the FOMO is still strong (you can always refresh and find some novelty), and reading a bunch of internet comments is a guaranteed cheap fix for dopamine (or whatever).

When I have experimented with banning these sites, I have felt a positive boost in my mental wellbeing, where I go back to being bored, which is great and leads to me doing more focused activities like reading more. I just don't know how to solve the "head in the sand" issue. This site has legitimately helped me in my career for example. I think I will land on a middle ground somewhere will be the ultimate answer, like catching up once per week or something.

tripleee 4 hours ago||
Have you tried only using it through RSS feeds? https://hnrss.github.io/

Likewise with Reddit you can append .rss to get a feed

stronglikedan 4 hours ago||||
Nah, it's just a news aggregator and discussion forum. I'm not here putting my life on display for everyone, and there isn't even a way for me to do that, so it's not social media. Not only do I not have a non-anonymous presence on this site, but there's not even info to link me to one, so it's still not social media... and not even close.
inknight 4 hours ago||||
an infinite feed with a recommendation algorithm is the root of all evil
jjulius 4 hours ago|||
Gottem! Checkmate.

/s

antii 40 minutes ago||
[dead]
Muhammad523 3 hours ago||
I noticed that i often spend lots of hours on my computer without doing anything useful but instead doomscrolling on hacker news and watching countless Youtube videos i hardly understand and give little attention. I think i could solve this by making a list of things i want to do on my computer before turning it on, but i haven't tried yet
thewanderer1983 1 hour ago||
I noticed the Tetris effect when watching Lex Fridman interviews with Academics. Every expert saw the universe through that lens and thought it was the most significant and most interesting way to look at everything.
westoque 3 hours ago||
> But like every habit, the only thing you have to do is to keep at it. And if you pay enough attention to it, something will click in your brain.

a bad habit i noticed after taking hiatus of focused work was me jumping into different windows and tabs and just mindlessly consuming content without finishing them. after noticing this pattern, i decided i will focus on one task at a time and finishing it, like reading the OPs article. it did wonders for me and i noticed i'm now even more focused that ever. the lesson is indeed being aware first, and then practicing the habit.

baxtr 3 hours ago|
I see the same pattern with people on their phones. Opening up an app, immediately switching to the next app, repeat.
cube00 5 hours ago||
> You didn’t really have one big app that you could open and order it to entertain you. Instead, you had a few dozen of bookmarks to websites, each with a specific idea in mind.

This overlooks how common custom homepages such as Lycos, Yahoo! and MSN were and how the browsers pushed these as their default home pages.

While they may not be as addictive as "the algorithm" of today, they were still packed with clickbait images/links to attract your attention and ads to drain your wallet.

MSN: https://web.archive.org/web/20021108094511/http://www.msn.co...

My MSN: https://web.archive.org/web/20021107081016/http://my.msn.com...

redanddead 5 hours ago||
Microsoft is still hawking this same beat decades later
ReturnoftheHack 5 hours ago||
[dead]
tripleee 5 hours ago||
Peak internet was the brief period of time when it was available but we weren't permanently connected. It was an intentional decision to log on, do what you wanted to do, and then disconnect.
TacticalCoder 3 hours ago|
I've got two LANs at home, one of them I disconnect from the Internet by pulling a single ethernet cable (in a "try to hack this" way).

It's honestly very refreshing to have stuff I self-host and be operational without needing 24/7 Internet connection.

I'm running such a setup since years and, IMO, it helps me focus.

supersour 22 minutes ago||
Reminds me very much of this, which I have printed out and placed on my wall at home:

https://www.gurdjieff.org/lannes2.htm

alansaber 5 hours ago||
This is why I like books. No attempt at attention hijacking. Wheras every other modern app tries to claw your eyes out.
robertclaus 5 hours ago||
Our book club has actually noted that more and more mainstream books are written for low attention span. Repeating details ad nauseum and simplifying the plot significantly. So I don't think books are immune to this automatically.
tombert 4 hours ago|||
I am not sure that that's recent. Most books, even before the internet, were kind of low-effort shit.

You've always had terrible borderline-porn romance novels at grocery stores and terrible pulp novels and the like. We just don't read terrible novels from 100 years ago; whatever we read from that era now has survived the test of time. The same cannot be said about anything released in the last couple years.

cattenwallen 1 hour ago|||
I would argue there is some recency: it used to be the case that editors were working with authors in the sense of building their careers. Not even 10 years ago it could be expected an author might not hit it big until their 3rd or 4th book (George RR Martin was like this) and editors were focused on building the skills of their authors in storytelling. Now editors are also pulled in a billion different directions and work more like project managers on way too many books at a time, and things like typos and whatnot are being introduced into traditionally published books with glossy special edition covers.
pixl97 4 hours ago||||
Also, quantity is a quality in and of itself.

Grocery store softcore porn was still very expensive in time, money, and space. The amount of energy required to move a book around is monumental in comparison to how much energy it takes to move the same number of bits of information contained in the book. The speed at which just the information moves (in modern digital networks) is nearly instantaneous. The space the digital book carries is not measurable by the human senses.

It was nearly impossible for most people to afford to fill every waking moment with a book in front of them, bar a few addicts. Now there is a river of information actively fighting for your eyeballs at every moment. And how the meme-gene works, the most addictive types will rise as the victor.

switchbak 1 hour ago|||
I've started avoiding many things created in 2023 or later - you can be pretty sure writing prior to that wasn't some AI slop someone threw together with a half-arsed prompt.

These days I have this vague paranoia that most of what I'm watching, listening to, interacting with is just the product of some meat proxy somewhere trying to put some more half baked crap in front of my eyeballs.

I wish I had a portal to human curated, absolutely non-AI, non-clickbait BS like the very old internet (which still wasn't perfect). I think that dream is effectively dead now. But old books/movies/music are still good. Now I sound like an old grandpa reminiscing about the old days.

titzer 3 hours ago|||
> every other modern app tries to claw your eyes out.

They do, and it's annoying that even apps for "real work" do the same thing by flashing notifications/tips in your face, advertising a new feature you don't want to use right now, or warning you that everything is about to break soon.

eatsyourtacos 3 hours ago|||
Good old PC video games are good at this as well. It's a joy to get into a game and not have anything else trying to pull you away with random crap.
popalchemist 4 hours ago||
Relatively true, but less true every day.
davnicwil 27 minutes ago|
> Do you want to listen to music? Just open a Spotify playlist and let the algorithm figure out what you like. Please ignore the AI slop they will insert in between real songs to avoid paying royalties to real artists.

To be honest it is worse than this. Spotify over the years just seems to have gotten worse and worse at the one job I want it to do well which is just play the music I already know I want to play, which should be incredibly obvious from my play count and what I've downloaded.

Instead I'm regularly surprised by random noise such as popover in-product ads for extra features I don't care about, and simple AI features I might want like detecting I am in this certain place at this certain time where I usually listen to these albums or playlists so maybe weight them accordingly in a quick access list on the home screen or something aren't, for whatever reason, done.

I mean this doesn't even need LLMs it's just an algorithm, but you see what I mean. Using intelligence in the ways I should obviously care about from the way I use the product, instead of trying to get me to change the way I use it (I won't, I wish there was a way I could just definitively tell them this).

Alas, after years of annoyance with this it's still just about above the bar of useful enough, so I keep paying, and just can't be bothered to invest the time switching to some other service like apple music. So in a sense I'm probably encouraging this behaviour by not churning.

More comments...