The number of weekly downloads has simply been increasing over time, due to growing popularity. Calling each new high "record-breaking" is a bit meaningless.
Unix timestamp counter breaks record after writing this comment.
It's the tried and true headline method of "event 2 happened after event 1", implying a causal effect between the two, despite no evidence of such effect existing. Technically the headline is correct, in the same way that "Canada Tariffs $20b in US Goods After Amazon Plane Crash" is also correct.
There has to be a much stronger correlation between good press for a software release and the subsequent downloads of it, even if a certain number of downloads were inevitable.
It actually happened. The US GNIS system was updated, and thus the apple maps and google maps have updated their maps to reflect
Other map providers will have to make a decision, but these sorts of things have historically been fraught with politics, I think most maps will go with whatever the official source they use has declared
It is actually no correct. A record by definition is an unsurpassed accomplishment or statistic. It needs to be an accomplishment before it can be called a record. The passage of time does not qualify as a record. Also, a statistical certainty cannot be called a record.
The year 2025 progressed to 2026. Never in the history of the Gregorian calendar have we EVER made it to 2026. That is an accomplishment. That is a record.
We do consider the oldest person alive and the oldest recorded person ever, to be records of a sort. So if that counts, why wouldn't a personal best count?
There is a semantic difference between capturing data (recording) and putting somethng on record (capturing/recording an achievement). One is the process of documenting and the other is the documented result that acts as a benchmark.
When you record an achievement, there is no need to record another one until you surpass it. You can record attempts, but they are now just data that makes the actual record more meaningful the longer it exists without being surpassed.
But still nice to hear. Really timely, too, since my 83-year-old mom called me the other day to help her E-mail a document she prepared in LibreOffice. I installed it on her (seldom-used) computer years ago. So I talked her through E-mailing it with Thunderbird.
And I say "talked," because the jagoffs at Microsoft REMOVED Remote Assistance from every version of Windows used by people who are likely to need it. And MS Office is trash; the more people abandon it the better.
>And I say "talked," because the jagoffs at Microsoft REMOVED Remote Assistance from every version of Windows used by people who are likely to need it.
But also, you'll notice that giant banner on the linked page. It's because the people "most likely to need it" are also those most likely to fall victim to the increasing number of remote assistance scams.
If she's anything like my mom, i.e. someone who has been using computers for a while now but never had the confidence to experiment with it, any small change will freak her out and there really is a long tail of those. It's not a matter of Linux not being good enough, being different is already a real problem.
>because the jagoffs at Microsoft REMOVED Remote Assistance from every version of Windows used by people who are likely to need it.
when did they remove quick assist? i thought i used it recently (within a month or two), but maybe im misremembering. a quick google still shows it as available for home installs.
To continue further down the IT family support software, I use DWService because it seems like it's almost impossible for my sweet friends and relatives to accidentally break it. It's like a cockroach once it's in there and i've been very thankful for that
Their point was more that, if every 'weekly download count after a new release' (or whatever record) is consistently being broken on each new release due to generally increasing popularity, then it doesn't make sense to imply causality between the messaging around this particular release and its already-expected record-breaking status.
But that is perfectly consistent with the downloads incrementally going up all the time. It doesn't say anything about whether the recent policy changes increased that rate.
Excuse you? What I originally said was "I don't understand your comment". They posted a clarification, and the clarification still doesn't make sense. No, I haven't read the download numbers. How is that going "well akshually"?
No, it doesn't. If the claim is just that download numbers are not consistently trending upwards, they should have just said that. I would have no trouble understanding that. What they actually said is "Libreoffice didn't say the numbers were going up, they claimed a specific record." Well, so what? Nobody said Libreoffice said that! The OP said that, because if it's true, then it's not surprising that the latest stat (release or not) is the highest ever. Nobody in the thread so far has said anything that contradicts "the numbers were going up anyway, therefore the record might not be to do with the AI policy".
The numbers graph is spiky and I can imagine you could argue either way that they are generally trending up or not. But that's irrelevant!
This objection is completely meaningless unless the download numbers follow a consistent upwards trend. You are simplifying the new record to a boolean, but most people still find meaning in extraordinary events happening, even if they follow a general trend.
So I fail to see this discussion as anything but sophistry until anyone demonstrates that the download numbers are totally ordinary. It's typical HN contrarianism without any value, because it's enough to argue for the possibility of something, even when the data for checking it is easily accessible.
I think the confusion is that robrain somehow understood smokel's objection as being "all-time total downloads obviously increase over time, so this is meaningless", rather than what smokel actually said which was "the number of weekly downloads has simply been increasing over time". Which is why robrain quoted LibreOffice's "This is the highest number of downloads in the first week”, to counter the idea (which nobody suggested) that the record was just about all-time cumulative downloads going up.
That's then what tempfile was questioning how it contradicted smokel's claim (because it doesn't, just an imagined claim). Your points, that if the number of weekly downloads isn't actually consistently increasing then this could still be meaningful, are valid - but irrelevant to tempfile who was wasn't arguing that this is meaningless; you should argue that to smokel instead.
Their point is that weekly downloads may have been on a constant rise for years due to a constant rise in popularity. It's not as constant as absolute number of downloads, but the point is that "breaking record" is still something that's likely happening frequently and doesn't need to be related to any statement they gave. They don't share any numbers, at least in the post.
> In one week, the installer was downloaded more than 1 million times — not counting updates via Linux distribution repositories.
Either there's 1m people downloading new software "because no ai", or there's another popular thing that installs this, and is not counted in the "updates via linux repos". One is much much more probable than the other.
Yeah, the ones that know obvious slop and won't ship it are the ones who will win. Unfortunately it seems like I'm stuck with the other half at my current job.
Disliking clunky autocomplete is very different from going out of your way to replace Word with Libre Office. The average office worker will tolerate ten bad assistants before they voluntarily deal with ODF formatting quirks in a corporate environment
Unless they're is a negative force, such as people being put off by the lack of AI features. While a lack of such a response might not justify the headline used here, I think it is certainly worth noting.
Yes. But in this case as there has been a recent announcement that could be significant, the trend continuing has some significance because it means the announcement likely⁰ had no detrimental effect¹.
We don't know absolutely nothing here: there is a new variable in play and this result gives us some evidence of the effect of that.
--------
[0] It _could_ have done, but something else countered it, though this is less likely according to Occam's razor.
[1] As opposed to reducing interest in the tools. The figures² apparently don't look to support an increase in interest though.
[2] Going by what others here are saying. The linked text doesn't state any numbers, nor does the announcement from the LibreOffice project, and I don't have time to go digging further ATM.
Something isn't adding up. Here's what the Document Foundation says about 26.8 [1]:
> 1,031,162 downloads
> This is the highest number of downloads in the first week of any LibreOffice release! These are just stats from our official downloads page, of course – many Linux users will have acquired the new release via their distribution’s package repositories.
But their weekly stats page [2] does not show anywhere near that many downloads. It shows a small number in the first week, then a bit over 700k next week, then almost a million in the third week. Even if we combine the first two weeks on the chart under the assumption that release weeks might not align with the weeks using in the chart it is nowhere near a million.
Also the mouseover popup on the stats page is showing 26.8 several weeks before release.
Update. Looking at the stats in day view instead of week view, the downloads for their release week were actually around [1] 1.259 million, using 2026-08-26 as the release date. That's the date in the release notes.
However, if we take the release date as 2026-08-25 then the 7 day total is exactly what their blog post said.
Also by comparing the week numbers to the daily numbers, we can determine that their week 35 is August 23-29 (Sunday to Saturday). They are using US week numbering, not ISO week numbering. In ISO it would be 24-30 (Monday to Sunday).
The Document Foundation is based in Germany so I kind of expected they would use ISO weeks.
[1] "around" rather than the exact number because this originally was an update to the original comment, but the edit window closed while I was writing it. When you submit in those circumstances you don't get an error and your editing area is undisturbed. You simply lose the editing area. I'm not going to go and add up everything again, so am going from memory of the number.
the stock market goes up and down daily, but with a functioning economy it will overall be up. from a distance you are right, something that keeps going up keeps achieving new highs.
but, if you follow the market on a daily basis, you will be paying attention to the market swooning for periods of time, maybe with a small recovery and then another swoon. New "all time highs" do provide convenient notifications that the economy has now grown from before. Without new highs, your investments are treading water.
I'm planning to make a killing when somebody unretires me to fix all the issues.. Or maybe not, I hope my retirement accounts are so large I can laugh at their "piddly $500/hr offer".
The hourly pay will be $1200, no less. Thanks to inflation this amount will cover just about the cost of two second-hand teabags and a mouldy lump of bread.
Banks are known for running mainframes which handle dates differently and will not be rolling over. The ones that use unix are likely to 64 bit systems that won't roll over.
This seems to be a wrapper around llama.cpp with several tuned parameter settings. Most of the speedup is gained by enabling speculative decoding [1]. No amazing breakthroughs, just good tuning!
Hm, comparing developments spanning from the 12th century up to now with stuff that is happening in the last decade. Just give social media about 5 or 6 centuries to develop, and then check back to see if the arguments of this article are sound.
Edit: sorry for being so dismissive, but I just can't stand rhetoric that says something about "us" and "we". There were seriously stupid people back when we supposedly had larger attention spans. There are still stupid people now.
I used to think the same way, that people have always overreacted to new technology.
But over time I’ve started to feel there’s at least a bit of truth to some of those moral panics, and it's not correct to dismiss all. I remember laughing at an old article about “calcu-holism,” basically the idea of becoming too dependent on calculators. At the time it sounded ridiculous, but looking back, the point wasn’t that bad. Reaching for a calculator to do basic math is a silly habit, a sign of extreme mental laziness. And it's inefficient too.
I’ve noticed something similar in myself with attention. I remember reading The Power Broker, a 1,000+ pages tome, in under a month. Now I struggle to finish books that are a fraction of that length. And if it feels this way for me, I can only imagine what it’s like for teenagers who’ve grown up with smartphones their entire lives. Possibly, being completely engrossed in a book would be an alien experience to them.
That is also true for me on struggling to complete books, but don't forget when books first become cheap there were letters to the newspapers deploring that young people were reading rather than 'living' by talking with friends or going to the theatre.
I remember for a history project at secondary school reading the notes from a parish meeting in the 1600s from my local church, where the elders were complaining about young people meeting in the porch of the church at night to drink and socialise. Which is pretty much what my friends and I were doing at as a teen (though local park over the church).
I feel like the authors of many non-fiction books (e.g. business, self-help) are told that they must write a 320 page book, even if the core is, at most twenty, pages. I guess it needs to look plump on the shelf at the airport or something. Dale Carnegie got a lot across in a small number of pages. Today he’d have to do 320 pages or maybe even two books one on making friends and one influencing people. I wouldn’t mind paying for the book if there was a way to get the wheat without the chaff. I’ve seen various book summary apps but I’d rather get it straight from the author minus 300 pages of filler.
This is basically the conclusion of the "If Books Could Kill" podcast. After reviewing hundreds of bad nonfiction and self help books, excepting the ones that are deliberate scams through-and-through, they tend to be one good idea, or interesting observation the author had, that could fit in a blog post, but which had to be expanded to become an all-encompassing explanation for all of society and history and the universe in order to be publishable.
I was reading this book "Why Greatness Can't be Planned". Very interesting concept. From some startup SWE as well. Contains quite a few topics I wanted to read about but even for a "thin" 130 pages book, it is still needlessly padded; could have been half the pages and not miss anything.
It's always surprising how many HN readers seem to read only non-fiction, sometimes only self-help style books about business and startups. Some are even proud of that.
I’m equally surprised how many people read extremely low quality pop fiction nowadays. Especially those romantic/erotic books. Those were the kind of book you’d be laughed at for reading back in the day.
Reading non-fiction about some current topic isn’t that bad in comparison.
I'm kinda dumping my thoughts in this reply to a bunch of the parent/sibling comments - but to me non-fiction isn't the problem, it's specifically the self-help genre that by and large seems incredibly intellectually shallow, e.g. the fast food of non-fiction.
This became me, somewhere along the last 5-10 years. Not the being proud of it part, just the realization that my breadth of book reading has taken a nosedive. Unfortunately I haven’t read a single book of any kind in the last few years. Having kids didn’t help, but I am planning to change that finally.
great ones like berserk, 5cmps, cowboy bebop, your name are rare. Good ones are plenty. In fact, considering, how shitty western writers have become, even the trash manga/manwha are infinitely better.
Writing has been around for thousands of years. But it caught on extremely slowly. It took thousands of years to spread across the globe. For thousands of years being literate was rare. The printing press changed things a lot, but books and the education needed to use them remained uncommon. Until pretty recently, a person’s daily life looked a lot like their grandparents’ did.
Things started picking up. Electricity went from zero to ubiquitous in a few generations. So did mechanized transport, radio, TV, and telephones.
It’s faster than that today. Most people today communicate using systems that didn’t exist at all when I was a child. At work, we’re all using tools that didn’t exist just a few years ago.
The “check back in a few centuries” doesn’t work, because we’re not going to be using the same stuff in a few centuries. We’re probably not going to be using the same stuff in a few decades. We didn’t have time to figure out the ramifications of doomscrolling before it became ubiquitous, and we’ll probably have even less time to figure out the next thing.
As a society, we have this silly habit of dismissing criticisms of incoming societal shifts because previous ones “turned out fine”. We grab the most extreme of the bad contrarian takes of the time and use it to ridicule the position as a whole. We often ignore those previous shifts were influenced by the criticisms of the time (not all of them bad) and that how it turned out was a result of the push and pull.
In other words, we need to have the people pointing out the bad parts of the change, to have any chance that it’ll actually turn out good.
Another thing often ignored is that shifts are happening more frequently and at larger scales, and we’ve seen them become out of control. All the more reason to take a breather a move slower.
I also think we underestimate the adverse side of changes we already live with. Would it really have been possible with a president (crypto)-scamming his voters in the 1950s or -60s US, or is that a result of televised media?
Read "Amusing ourselves to death" for exemple; written as a criticism of TV-media in the 80s but even more applicable on the short-form content of today.
Put Toqueville in a time-machine. Would he really regard the current state of society as something that should be aspired to?
Watch a televised primary or presidential debate from mid 20th century and you will be astounded at the quality of argument and focus of the discussion.
I think most people severely underestimate how far public discourse has fallen.
Exactly, so even the argument that everything turned out fine eventually, is not that valid. We could say that, only if we could compare “now” with a hypothetical parallel present where things stayed the same.
We also know from colleges and schools that students coming in are having difficulty doing the reading needed for classes, even in literature classes.
AI is making this worse, since it’s unleashed an epidemic of cheating and the tool itself is inimical to learning. (Learning is friction. The tool to remove friction also removes learning)
The issue isn’t that we have stupid people then and now. The issue is that trends of literacy and development now are changing direction.
> AI is making this worse, since it’s unleashed an epidemic of cheating and the tool itself is inimical to learning. (Learning is friction. The tool to remove friction also removes learning)
I disagree with this take so strongly. Yes, in practice people are lazy and they're just going to ask for the answer. But the potential for AIs to give targeted answers to specific questions about academic topics is so far ahead of anything I had going through undergrad or my master's program that it would be an epic missed opportunity not to leverage it in the educational process. I really disagree with you that the technology itself is inimical to learning.
You are free to disagree, and you are free to have an opinion. I would prefer your position to be the one that dominates, however the data on the ground doesn’t support the position.
If I can make a guess, the issue is that you are looking at the potential for individual learning improvement but I am referring to what is currently happening at scale.
If you remember school, most students didn’t want to be there. Homework exercises are something you would rather avoid.
America and the west, as class mobility became increasingly dependent on education, repeated the patterns in China and India. People went to college not because they wanted to study the subject, but because it got you a decent income when you got out.
In all these situations, you have people who aren’t there for the journey, but there for the outcome. (For that matter, even people who want to study, will take the easy way out.)
Having seen people use AI to study, it can be useful, especially if the underlying text books and notes are bad. However there are already many YouTube videos made by experts covering those topics, so the uplift here isn’t magical.
> I really disagree with you that the technology itself is inimical to learning.
This is a matter of belief, and in a vacuum it’s something most people would agree with. The issue is what the outcomes actually are.
I’m sure they’ll be critical in the sense that they’ll be heavily involved and the system set up to rely on them. I’m not so sure they’ll be critical in the sense that they substantially improve the process compared to today.
Consider computers in education. Education has been trying to cram “technology” into the process for decades. Every student in my kid’s elementary school has a laptop. It’s critical to education today. But is it actually improving education? I don’t see any indication of that. As far as I can see, everyone decided that computers were important to have in education, so they made it happen, without ever checking to see if it actually helped.
I have heard that sentiment many times already. It's a statement that is broad enough to capture any benefit and disavow any costs, for some later day when one can choose the nature of their measurement.
How would you estimate actual gains and losses to education for LLMs? What would good look like?
The actual gains will be very similar to the gains that I thought would come from projects like Khan Academy (which was also quite hotly contested among teachers when it first came out).
I don't agree with your rhetorical statement about the nature of my argument. I'm not trying to disavow any costs. I'm saying that AI represents a unique opportunity in the history of humanity to encapsulate knowledge and carry it through space and time in a highly scalable way.
We have an epidemic of schools doing poorly in educating our students with constantly dropping standards, and an unwillingness to raise teachers' salaries. Education is extraordinarily expensive and I anticipate LLMs can be incorporated into a larger automated course load that is not stuck in the rigorous, true/false analysis that other automated systems have been stuck with in the past.
LLMs are already excellent at critiquing humans' writing and providing feedback that a talented editor would typically have to be paid to provide.
So, to summarize, the gains will be in the average cost of a high school education, the availability of that education across the world, the reliability of the information presented in the course curriculum, and the consistency with which we can educate at scale.
Very few people have the discipline to use it in that way rather than as a way to remove friction, just as practically no one with a smartphone doesn’t, at least occasionally, find themselves “sucked in”.
Hell yeah. Trudging a mile through the snow and ice from West Campus to the Engineering Quad to sit in my TA's office hours so I could hope to ask a question about problem 19 because I don't understand the second half of it is a vastly worse use of time than firing up Gemini and saying "I'm taking partial differential equations, and I'm seeing a problem where I have to..."
I would kill to go back through undergrad with an AI by my side as I study, or even in class, so when the professor loses me 10 minutes into an 80-minute lecture, I have a hope of getting back on the train and not having the lecture be a waste.
My point is exactly that comparing some variation within 20 years with to a 1000 year period makes little sense. Sure, our collective literacy might be decreasing now, but perhaps it was a bit too high to begin with? Leaders of a country are not the majority. The article makes quite a few of these categorical mistakes.
AI also allows for a lot more learning. Using ChatGPT to read and better understand Moby Dick works wonders for me.
AI seems to be a good tool for people who are already good at learning and critical thinking to use to accelerate their learning. Research on broader populations so far is not so hopeful, with most people using it to avoid learning. This is unsurprising to me, since people are often quite resistant to learning.
As to your point, literacy rates have been declining since the 80s. 40, going on 50 years is plenty of time to study a trend and draw conclusions.
Can you point me to any time in history where low literacy led to better outcomes for the average person than high literacy? Or even a study that looks solely at modern times and doesn’t manage to correlate literacy with positive social achievement?
But even if you can’t accept a historical argument due to the spans of time being incomparable, I personally believe from a more normative perspective that literacy is a foundational and fundamental good for humanity. But, if you can’t accept that argument either, consider how much of our ability to interact with and understand our own society requires literacy: imagine trying to sign up for healthcare, understand your taxes, weigh the risks of a surgical procedure, or figure out who to vote for if you either can’t read, can’t understand nuance, or are constantly missing words due to a lacking vocabulary.
And of course, being less literate means you are more likely to be convinced by people whose rhetoric is convincing, whether or not their ideas are correct and whether or not they are actually trying to fleece you.
Do you speak more than one language? I think that is also a telling experience. It would be extraordinarily difficult for me to live in a country where my second language is the only one. Sure, I can follow along with a conversation well enough, but dealing with government bureaucracy, forms, healthcare, and politics without the ability to be certain in my interpretation of the text would be a nightmare.
The irony of people sitting here on this all-text discussion site, responding to a textual article about the effect of technology on literacy, responding with “well, maybe literacy is actually not so important,” is so utterly ridiculous that I hope it’s satire and I’m just missing the joke.
> This is unsurprising to me, since people are often quite resistant to learning.
This is an attitude I had when I was 19 and had spent a bunch of time and money going to school. I had a life event that made me leave school and take on a huge debt that had to be paid. Most people learn - they just learn in context of their necessity and their own passions. For other things, they lean on the community around them (doctors, lawyers, accountants, software engineers etc...)
> AI seems to be a good tool for people who are already good at learning and critical thinking to use to accelerate their learning.
I'm watching the huddled masses start to figure it out. AI is going to be to arrogant intellectualism what the gun was to the knight. Now anyone who can operate a mobile phone (and literacy is not required) has access to a shocking level of expertise and contextualized knowledge. And as AI improves this will be more and more the case.
> constantly missing words due to a lacking vocabulary
First prompts of non developer employees were "what does ___ mean?". Real time vocabulary is a thing now.
> “well, maybe literacy is actually not so important,” is so utterly ridiculous that I hope it’s satire and I’m just missing the joke.
It's not a joke. AI is going to reshape society. It's just started. Back to the gun analogy - the knights are just now starting to realize that proficiency with a sword and 70kg of armor are no match for a peasant with a pistol. Likewise, I suspect that Joe six-pack with AI in his pocket can do knowledge work at a "way good enough" level. I don't want to accept it, but that seems to be reality.
> - the knights are just now starting to realize that proficiency with a sword and 70kg of armor are no match for a peasant with a pistol
This isn’t a metaphor/analogy that works. There is a parallel in the introduction of a tool that has more “firepower” but that isn’t the crux of the issue when it comes to intelligence.
You can give fable to someone who has never written code before and someone who has experience writing SW. Your outcomes are very different.
The crux of the matter is that you need to know what “good” looks like to use automation or augmentation tools well. This is why it’s a greater boost to people with experience.
> Hm, comparing developments spanning from the 12th century up to now with stuff that is happening in the last decade. Just give social media about 5 or 6 centuries to develop, and then check back to see if the arguments of this article are sound.
For most of time, until the industrial revolution, technology didn't really advance that quickly. The world you were born into would be technologically near identical to the one you died in.
Technology is now advancing at such a rate that most if not all of humanity is in a permanent state of future shock, and it's only going to get worse. Nobody really seems to have a clue how to deal with that.
Looked up this phrase and found the book of the same name, not sure if you were making a reference to the book but from the short synopsis I saw it seems like a very prophetic book for being written 50 years ago and I can see how many of his predictions are coming true, I will order a copy for sure now.
Your post and this book describe a phenomenon that I have always felt but never seen described before, thanks
While I agree with your sentiment, I doubt that we can really judge that properly without some objective distance in time. The invention of the printing press, canals, gunpowder, sailing, may have changed lives quite a bit.
Consider also the people who were "discovered" by the Europeans [1].
All of those things changed some individual lives I the short term, and changed societies in the long term. But they did not change societies in the short term. The average life in the decades before the printing press was pretty much the same as in the decades after. Inventions that massively altered entire societies within a human lifespan of their invention are pretty new. Maybe somebody more familiar with the history of technology can correct me, but I can’t think of anything like that before the steam engine.
The point is that radio, then television, then internet, then smartphones, then AI, each one of which is as impactful on the world as the examples you gave, emerged within a couple hundred years ago years, rather than a couple thousand (and the last few within a couple decades).
Breaking “social” up into networking (connecting to my friends: MySpace, old Facebook) and media (social-graph recommended content: TikTok, current Facebook mostly)… the former might stick around. But the latter seems pretty vulnerable to learning model generated content, right? Social media might not exist in a couple decades or might be seen as sort of primitive stepping-stone on the path to algorithmically-generated entertainment media.
Which will probably be quite bad, but then, influencer-generated entertainment media was quite bad, so maybe we won’t be too much worse off.
There are more people now, and all else being equal, there would likely be more stupid people as well, in absolute numbers. That might give someone the impression that things are going downhill.
Also, the article and book claim that people have read less classics than some time ago. But the same argument is even worse in reverse: people from some time ago had no clue about climate change, computers, women's rights, or AI. With all their smarts, they let this happen. How does that suggest that reading the classics is useful?
> There are more people now, and all else being equal, there would likely be more stupid people as well, in absolute numbers. That might give someone the impression that things are going downhill.
Can you point to a specific observation or claim that this is relevant to? I don't see any argument that's sensitive to the absolute number of stupid people in the world. This is a non-sequitur at best.
> Also, the article and book claim that people have read less classics than some time ago. But the same argument is even worse in reverse: people from some time ago had no clue about climate change, computers, women's rights, or AI. With all their smarts, they let this happen. How does that suggest that reading the classics is useful?
Your argument here is implicitly that if reading the classics were useful, then we should've invented computers sooner than we did? Do you find that compelling?
Like I said in another comment, this famous article by the Atlantic [1] has pretty convincing testimony that kids studying the humanities at elite universities can't read either.
I agree with the sentiment that we tend to misrepresent the culture of mass societies, as if at one point in time there were droves of people reading Aristotle. But the ability to read and our transition to an oral or post-literate culture is very much affecting elites too. There is pretty good evidence when you compare contemporary histories. Or if you live in a bourgeois milieu, you just need to ask around.
I don't think that reading necessarily makes you a better person. I've met a good amount of people of the highest moral dignity who do not read. But on the whole, reading helps build competence - moral and technical - and create a sense of shared culture. Going back to an "oral culture" is nothing but a regression.
This is in fact one of the primary points of TFA and the book it recommends: that the degradation of literacy, public discourse, and general intelligence that started with the television (and was well-described in Amusing Ourselves to Death, referenced in TFA, and which the title pays homage to) has only continued and, if anything, accelerated with the introduction of the smartphone and modern social media.
Sibling comment got the definition, but “TFA” comes from “RTFA”: “read the fucking article”, in response to “yeah, but what about ($THING that was discussed at length in the first paragraph)?”
Origins: “RTFM”. “What’s the switch for ls that prints time stamps?”
I just can't agree with this. Social media has a noticeable, damaging effect on those who consume it constantly.
If you haven't had the distinct displeasure of being around an iPad kid, I envy you.
There's anecdote that aligns with experience, that aligns with studies. And frankly, it seems silly to me that we need science to empirically prove something we can all witness with our own brains. That said, whichever method you submit to: they all bear witness to the same conclusion:
Social media (especially the brainless forms like TikTok) is incredibly damaging.
Time seems to be one of the most valuable luxuries. AFAIK it is not entirely clear why time seems to pass faster when one grows older. One argument is that the older brain does not form memories as intricate as in the younger brain.
Has anyone experimented with actively making more complex memories to make time pass slower? Seems like the best approach to living longer, at least in experience.
No direct answer, but I’ve personally noticed that having seasons makes a big difference here. After spending the past year on the East Coast with all of the different seasons, I certainly felt like time was going slower and looking back. It is pretty clear cut in my brain as to how much I did during that time.
That’s in contrast to where I normally live, which is southern California where you basically just go between Summer and Winter Lite which does seem to make the time pass quicker and lead to more routine living. I’ve often speculated with my friends around here about how there is a “Paradise Effect” of living here with both how people live their lives, as well as with how we perceive time.
If you spend a year in prison then the time will pass incredibly slowly, but in retrospect (this is what prisoners usually say) the ordeal will seem quite short. Conversely, if you spend the year furiously partying or traveling or trying new adventure sports then the retrospective memory will be full to the brim, but the year itself will pass in an instant.
It all seems quite logical to me. There's no negotiating with the passage of time.
I've found that traveling and discovering new things make time seem to pass slower because I have a lot of memories of those new places. On the other hand when I'm in a routine and keep doing the same thing everyday, it feels that time passes slower at the moment (because I'm bored) but looking back then time seems to have flown by
Exactly my experience and fits with my idea of how time is perceived in general. Ask a young child what they did this last week and they can likely rattle off a whole bunch of things that they've learned/experienced/discovered for the first time - a lot of 'memory milestones'. Ask your average adult and you'll often just get "same same" - no new 'memory milestones' because the week was pretty much just a repeat of a regular routine.
As for how it feels at the time. There's a lot of truth in the sayings "time flies when you're having fun" and "a watched pot never boils".
I’m trying to fight it by journaling more and trying to remember more of the details that make each day special (good or bad). Even the small things. Whether that is something I did with my son, or something I did slightly different for a routine task.
It’s because you do less memorable things, so there are less milestones to judge the time by. When you’re young, you don’t have to try so hard as many things are new and exciting. As you get older, you get a career, fall into autopilot mode, and maybe just take a vacation once in a while. Your options are to either figure out how to free yourself of this system so you can spend your time exactly how you want, or to rediscover the wonder and reward in small, seemingly everyday things.
The way back always seems shorter that the way there. That's because you've already seen everything on the way there.
Neuroscience says novelty, plus attention, plus later retrieval are what slow down subjective perception of time.
So make sure you are having novel experiences, pay attention while you're having them, and recall them again later.
Even small things like going to a park you don't normally go to, and noticing the foliage and sounds can help. Big things like travel helps as well if you make sure you're taking it in, and it you recall the trip again later.
Maybe this is because I'm not a native speaker, but I'm having difficulty parsing this. What breaks? Do you mean time slows down during the retreat, or does the effect persist afterwards?
> It had never “seen” a go board, or had one explained
I assume that you are referring to AlphaGo or AlphaZero. In either case, this statement is not correct. Both algorithms most certainly know exactly what a go board looks like, and what the rules are.
In the case of AlphaZero, it initially did not know how to best play the game, or what strategy or tactics would work. But the connections between the neural network and the go board are hardcoded, by humans.
"Somebody is wrong on the internet" will get you more, and more reliable, results on what people actually want from AI. You are now participating in a very high-value survey.
reply