Posts by placidranger

Mark Gomez9 said:Oh yeah, Aphex, you are just soooo cool, we should totally be besties☕

No.

Dana Kelly5 said:Honestly, it’s pathetic seeing people still obsessing over this....Being "cool" back then doesn't mean anything now. I'm currently struggling just to scrape through my junior year of high school, hoping I might actually pass my driver's test this summer..And frankly, today's definition of "cool" is a far cry from how it used to be. Those who still cling to that old version of popularity should enjoy it while they can—they're basically stuck in a permanent state of arrested development, acting like they're still twelve.

Did you actually think you were cool, or was it just a shared delusion?

Betty Myers7 said:Honestly, what on earth are we even talking about here??

"Oh, everyone else is doing it, we used to do the same thing, let's just be glad they aren't drinking more" 😕

And that’s the excuse? There is no excuse. These kids need a serious reality check to bring them back down to earth. They haven't even truly started living on this planet yet, and already they're trying to prove how tough they are? Please. 🙄
And before anyone calls this sensationalist journalism, let me be clear: this is the reality on the ground. We have middle schoolers getting wasted at school and passing out in the bathrooms while their parents show up to pick them up because they can't even stand on their own two feet. 😕
Where is the guidance? Where are the counselors? I don't see any, and frankly, we need to get more mental health professionals into our schools immediately. It feels like something is fundamentally wrong with how they're thinking. 😕
Actually, the parents probably need a therapist even more than the kids do.
I mean, where is the sense of shame? Do they even have any left? Or has everything been washed away by screens and digital noise like everything else...
It's disgraceful.

Your method is great, 🤣
Quincy:

And this definitely isn't journalistic sensationalism—this is reality. Look at the facts: you have middle schoolers getting wasted at school and passing out in the bathrooms, forcing parents to pick them up because they can't even stand on their own two feet. 😕

Sensationalism is when people claim this is happening everywhere, when it isn't—acting like every single kid is doing it. They aren't. There are always groups that drink and groups that don't.
Quincy:

Where is the parenting in all this? And where are the counselors? I don't see any. We need more psychologists in our schools immediately, because it seems to me like there's something fundamentally wrong with their heads. 😕 The parents probably need a psychologist even more than the kids do. I mean, honestly, do they have no shame? Any sense of decency left at all? Or has everything been brainwashed by computers like everything else... It's pathetic.

What does "shame" have to do with anything? Should they feel embarrassed about drinking?
🤦
If anything, they should worry about their health, but what does that have to do with being ashamed?

Mark Gomez9 said:I'm not sure if you missed this point—and I truly hope you did—but the reality is that kids are getting drunk right inside an American school building.🙄

For instance, at my old high school, you would have been expelled on the spot the moment anyone even suspected you were intoxicated or touching alcohol. But then again, I've seen certain groups of kids in some schools who are just arrogant, undisciplined, and frankly, a lost cause. I honestly feel for the decent students who are forced to share a classroom or even a hallway with those types.

First off—the article is written like a sensationalist rag; the headline makes it sound like some groundbreaking news when it isn't.
Second—we were drinking in school, hanging out behind the building, smoking, and passing out by seventh grade. We were just as "normal" as anyone else. That generation produced doctors and lawyers alongside total losers, all of whom were drinking together. It’s not like times have changed or kids are suddenly different—my old man's generation lived the exact same way.

My grandmother didn't even attend school; she was busy playing in the dirt and tending to sheep. 😁

jadejackal592 said:Man, where is this world even headed... 😲 Honestly, this kind of behavior starts at home. It’s pure lack of discipline, and while schools try their best, they can't exactly fix how someone was raised. But what I really can't wrap my head around is why we just let it happen. Why isn't anyone stepping in to put a stop to it? I know of one high school where they aren't just sneaking drinks—they are straight-up binge drinking on campus, yet nobody seems to be doing anything about it. I just don't get it. 🤷

Give me a break. What "home" are we talking about here? Kids aren't drinking because their parents are alcoholics; they're doing it because their peers are doing it—pure peer pressure. And let's be real, drinking can be fun. Sure, you have a headache the next morning, but sometimes it's worth the night. It's not like it's the end of the world.

And I don't follow the logic regarding "allowing" it. It’s not like we can assign a federal agent to shadow every single kid twenty-four/seven just to make sure they aren't grabbing a drink.

Kids are drinking—now what? 🤷

Look, whether or not you were "cool" enough to hang out with the crowd back in high school isn't really the issue here. 😁

Let's shake things up a bit: 😁

Lisa Martinez82 said:Over the last three years, traffic on this site has basically increased tenfold. 🙂 Naturally, that means the server struggles sometimes—it crashes, or you find yourself spamming F5 just to get a page to load.
(...)
Are the outages happening more often lately? Not really. If anything, things were much worse two or three years ago. Right now, it’s holding up fine.

So, we have way more people hitting the site, yet the crash rate stays the same. And apparently, that counts as "stable" enough. 😁😁 :jea: :jes:

Samuel Murphy6 said:as if anyone 😠

So, you aren't on board?
Shouldn't someone using rhyming slang also be expected to follow standard American grammar and spelling rules? 😁😁

isuse, how did I miss this thread? 😍 what an absolute disaster 😍
let’s bring grammar back to poetry—seriously. even our national anthem is a mess. is that really what we fought for?? 😁

I read somewhere that Ecstasy was actually used in psychotherapy back before it was banned—specifically for couples counseling and family therapy.

Or musicians. Suddenly everyone’s playing the poverty card—I mean, look at Metallica playing weddings now. 😁

And that’s why Microsoft is such a pathetic excuse for a company—failing miserably because of all the piracy, right? 😁

Jonathan Morris40 said:You’d need to find some absolute madman capable of building encryption so tight even the NSA couldn't touch it. My advice? Start hunting for a top-tier hacker immediately.

Ignoring the torrents works better.

If you sink money into security, you’re essentially hiking up your product price just to cover those overheads—plus, let's be real, every protection eventually fails. This way, you squeeze revenue from the "legit" customers while still getting all the free marketing.
Maybe toss in a basic registration process with license keys, just so downloading the torrent isn't such a walk in the park.

Wait—what exactly ends up in the lungs? Nicotine, and what else?

Casey Palmer5 said:So you're covering all this when you're only sixteen... Is this some kind of pitch? You know, ads cost money—and you're under a microscope right now.

Look, I think people would actually know what they're buying if the product was called an "electronic" cigarette instead of some misspelled version used for marketing. 🤷

Then again—maybe it's intentional... 😬
or maybe there's just a larger lineup of products. 🤔

That TV commercial is pure gold 🤣

I mean, look at this guy 🙏 smoking an electric cigarette 🙏
Absolute garbage—honestly, I’d buy one if they weren't such a rip-off. 🙏
How much does that even run you, like 200-$100?

Edward Flores4 said:Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one... Look, you're free to believe that both Clark and Sagan were spot on, and that you've somehow managed to grasp things more deeply than they did, but 🙂
that's a stretch.

Furthermore, the purpose of a technological product isn't defined by the moment it's invented.

I wasn't even talking about "purpose" in the first place, 🤷
to be honest.

Take SMS, for example. Who could have predicted it would end up as this massive communication staple for teenagers and become such a huge money-maker for carriers?

What does that have to do with anything I actually said?

Computers were originally envisioned as devices intended for government use and scientific laboratories.

As far as I know, inventions happen because there's a specific need being met. Computers exist because we needed to crack German codes during World War II. At that stage, nobody was thinking about mass-producing PCs, let alone predicting their future utility beyond the very reason they were created in the first place.

I'm all for having a different perspective, but try to back yours up with something concrete. Right now, it feels like you're just stating an opinion rather than making a point, because I'm struggling to find any logic in the argument.

There are endless examples. It's the users who creatively redefine the purpose of an invention, largely independent of what was originally intended.

Here we go again with the whole "purpose" thing. 🤷

If some guy who knows nothing about firearms finds himself out in Alaska, and his gun freezes solid overnight... he might get the bright idea to hold it right next to a fire just to thaw the slide. If he's lucky, he'll hold the loaded barrel away from the heat so he can bring the slide toward the flame without burning his hands.

In this ridiculous little scenario, the "purpose" of the gun is completely irrelevant. The only factor that matters is the total lack of understanding regarding the tool being used—which, in reality, is usually how people get hurt.

accidents happen even to the pros who actually know their business

Exactly. But if you pair bad luck with being plain old stupid—like trying to defrost a handgun over a campfire in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness... well, you’ve got a pretty good chance of kicking the bucket due to your own sheer stupidity long before any "accident" ever catches up to you.

We're just interpreting their words differently. It's true that complex tech looks like magic to anyone without a basic grasp of the underlying principles—but that shouldn't affect their ability to use it, provided the interface is intuitive enough.

I wasn't even talking about the purpose 🤷
What does that have to do with anything I actually wrote?

Specifically, using technology as a status symbol was mentioned. That is a secondary function, distinct from its intended design, and I don't see any harm in that—nor in the rational use of any tool for any purpose.

The issue, as I see it, is the irrational use of potentially dangerous tech. That's how I interpreted Sagan's comment.

As far as I know, inventions happen when there's a specific need. The computer was born because we needed to crack German codes during World War II. In that phase, nobody was thinking about mass-producing computers, let alone their future applications beyond what triggered their existence.

Yes, I agree that's how many things get invented, but once they're in use, their initial function shifts. People end up using technology for things it wasn't designed for. Maybe I misread this part:

Those are all telltale signs of misunderstanding the technology being used and expecting it to fulfill a social role it wasn't built for. Consequently—disappointment and errors are inevitable.

?
A fleet of luxury cars perfectly serves the purpose of transportation while simultaneously acting as a status symbol.

I have no issue with differing opinions, but please back yours up with something concrete. Right now, it feels like you're just stating a conviction without any actual logic behind the argument.

Hopefully that clears things up.

The gun in this ridiculously over-the-top episode serves absolutely zero purpose. The real issue here—the only one that actually matters—is the total lack of understanding regarding the technology being used. It’s a dangerous kind of ignorance.

Most people today barely grasp how a computer works, yet they rely on them for their jobs, fly on commercial jets, drive cars... who knows what else. 🙂

Then again, the disaster at Three Mile Island was likely a direct result of incompetent handling and poor maintenance. I agree with you that anyone operating high-stakes tech needs top-tier training, but applying that logic to every single piece of technology seems like a bit of a stretch.

Edward Flores4 said:The only person who has an actual problem with it is the one using it that way. It’s kind of like how back in the day, having pale skin was the ultimate status symbol—so much so that the aristocracy would basically smear toxic metal emulsions on their skin just to look brighter and signal to everyone else that they were higher up the social ladder.

The "problem" there was just that they’d regularly drop dead from poisoning by their early 30s. If they had actually understood the science behind the tech they were using, they probably could have avoided that mess entirely.

You’ve likely heard the stories about how lead poisoning wrecked Roman households... just another classic example of technology being misused purely for the sake of showing off.

Basically, any time you use technology recklessly without grasping its underlying logic or function, things tend to end badly. At best, you end up feeling unnecessarily let down because the gadget didn't live up to your "social expectations." In the worst-case scenario, you literally kill yourself because you couldn't foresee the consequences of your own ignorance.

Using tech like that is essentially a marriage between futility and illusion. It’s a total train wreck waiting to happen.

I can't say I agree. People have been successfully using things they don't understand for ages—the more complex the tech gets, the more common that becomes—and I don't see the harm in it.

Besides, the purpose of a tech product isn't set in stone when it's invented. Take texting, for example. Do you really think the pioneers knew it would become the primary way teenagers communicate and ultimately become a massive money-maker for carriers?
Computers were originally designed for government agencies and research labs. Now, we have enough for everyone on the planet. There are endless examples. Users are the ones who creatively redefine an invention's purpose, often completely ignoring what the designers intended. And frankly, accidents happen even to people who actually know what they're doing. 🤷

Mark Torres14 said:Exactly. It freed us from backbreaking physical labor. We’re cleaner, we live longer, and we actually have something called "free time." At the same time, we're being absolutely bombarded with information—most of which we don't need, didn't ask for, and have zero power to stop from flooding our brains.
At work, computers "simplified" things by making it so that everything I used to do on paper now requires both paperwork AND digital input.
That brings me to what Michael Anderson2 mentioned. The creation of unnecessary needs.
How much of modern life is spent being a slave to those needs, versus how much of our identity is built around satisfying them?
It really is the real question. For all our talk about freedom and independence, why isn't anyone lining up to herd sheep for a thousand bucks a month plus room, board, and cigarettes?
Does nobody know where the Trečićs are hiding?😁

It's because technology offers an easier life—more free time, more ways to stay connected.

By the way, I suspect that guy with the sheep just didn't market his 😁
enough.

Edward Flores4 said:Personally, I don't see any real connection between political restrictions and the way we interact with tech.

When people say technology has become a "social relationship," what they really mean is that they're using it without actually understanding it. It's like those kids who absolutely have to have the latest sleek smartphone just because it serves as a status symbol within their specific peer group. If those kids understood technology the way a plumber understands that a faucet is just a way to access water—rather than a fashion statement—then that "must-have" phone wouldn't be serving a social function at all.

In other words, what you're describing still falls under the umbrella of "misunderstanding technology." People end up projecting almost supernatural importance onto modern gadgets. Whether it's a smartphone, a massive flat-screen TV, a luxury yacht, or even a high-end sports car with custom rims—they're all just symptoms of the same thing: a failure to grasp what the tech actually is, leading people to expect it to perform some social role it was never designed for. And because of that, disappointment and mistakes are pretty much inevitable.

So, the issue is that technology is being used as a status symbol?
Where's the problem with that?