862 karma · joined January 2, 2022
Perhaps the line means that people who read a lot are judgemental and likely to hate others. If that's the case, I don't really buy it, because people who truly read a lot are probably too busy reading to hate people not in the books.
If a vendor makes PayPal purchases slightly more expensive, it can cause bad will with the customer (who is less likely to return and make more purchases). Exceptions are sometimes with one-off purchases (e.g. a conference ticket or course fee).
Separately, the original comment asserted that the PayPal account charges you each transaction (which is false). The new argument is different, which asserts that a vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.
There are fees when receiving money as a result of selling a product or service, which is where PayPal makes (likely most) of its money.
More examples in the winter fashion industry: supposedly, to wear a Patagonia jacket says you care about sustainability; to wear a Canada Goose jacket says you have a quality coat and can afford it; while to wear Arc'teryx means you're a pro outdoorsy bloke prepared for extreme weather. A lot of the price comes from people wanting to communicate stuff about their identity.
(Slightly off-topic, but the cheapest and most functional way to stay warm isn't a parka, but wearing multiple layers, e.g. a base layer, a puffer jacket, and a waterproof windbreaker.)
Could you elaborate on this, especially with what basic facts are missing? My view on literature is optimistic about telling particular truths about society. For example, "Wuthering Heights" [0] looks like quite an honest view of society. Then again, this may be an exception more than the rule for that particular time period (I'm not personally sure, as I haven't read many books from that time period, versus others).
The practical advantage of no logos is that this avoids judgement. People may look down on you for spending so much to get an item from a brand, while other people might look down on you for spending too little. You could just not care about others' judgement, though other people could still treat you differently. Separately, there is the ethical issue of whether one frames visible logos as 'free advertising,' which might not be desirable to do.
The sociology text "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" by Paul Fussell also explores why some people deliberately wear brands, while others avoid them.
On a (potential over-analysis) of why some people deliberately have branded items: ""Legible clothing" is Alison Lurie's useful term to designate things like T-shirts or caps with messages on them you're supposed to read and admire. [...] When proles assemble to enjoy leisure, they seldom appear in clothing without words on it. As you move up the classes and the understatement principle begins to operate, the words gradually disappear, to be replaced, in the middle and upper- middle classes, by mere emblems, like the Lacoste alligator. Once, ascending further, you've left all such trademarks behind, you may correctly infer that you are entering the purlieus of the upper class itself."
"Brand names today possess a totemistic power to confer distinction on those who wear them. By donning legible clothing you fuse your private identity with external com- mercial success, redeeming your insignificance and becoming, for the moment, somebody. [...] And this need is not the proles' alone. Witness the T-shirts and carryalls stamped with the logo of The New York Review of Books, which convey the point "I read hard books," or printed with portraits of Mozart and Haydn and Beethoven, which assure the world, "I am civilized."
On why some people deliberately avoid logos: "X people are independent-minded, free of anxious regard for popular shibboleths, loose in carriage and demeanor. [...] Since there's no one they think worth impressing by mere appearance, X people tend to dress for themselves alone, which means they dress comfortably, and generally "down." [...] If the Xs ever descend to legible clothing, the words-unlike BUDWEISER or U.S.A. DRINKING TEAM-are original and interesting, although no comment on them is ever expected. Indeed, visibly to notice them would be bad form."
The TL;DR of the whole hypothesis by Fussell is that some people avoid having brands on their physical stuff because they don't want others to see a logo on an item; connect the logo to values of a corporation as part of that corporation's "brand identity"; and make assumptions about that person's personal identity based on that brand identity.
I would have liked to see links to those studies in the article to evaluate them. I was unexpectedly broken up with once (after committing for around 'just' a couple months), and it hurt for far longer and was more painful than I thought it might be. Things were mostly better after 4 months, and rarely thought of after around 8 months.
He told me that the idea was to 'shut his brain off' from his day-to-day work, while other more intensive hobbies would drain him further.
Quality newspapers have also been a relatively better source for information than social media (e.g. when newspapers identified a viral Tweet about supposed combat footage in Ukraine as a clip from a video game flight simulator).
I suppose one could completely cut out both social media and news entirely, but then it's hard to receive useful information (e.g. that gas prices and wheat prices are expected to go up, and so many people should plan accordingly).
For example, the Financial Times, despite being comparatively pricey (I think about $400 USD per year), is doing well and has over 1 million subscribers despite its paywall since 2002 [0]. In 2021, The New York Times reached over 7.5 million subscribers, and is doing quite well financially (in contrast to most other news outlets in the US) [1]. Financial outlets (like the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Wall Street Journal) do well because their readership tends to have more money, or work for companies willing to pay for subscriptions (as avoiding the news could put their businesses, especially if in the financial sector, at a competitive disadvantage).
The New York Times is an exception rather than the rule, because it offers readers the idea that they can become more well-informed and smarter by reading the newspaper (one can argue whether this is warranted, though it's an effective marketing argument). However, a lot of their revenue also comes from their Games section (crosswords and now Wordle, though Wordle doesn't have a paywall in its current form) and their recipes section.
In short, I think people are willing to pay for the news when it can perform a function that can't be accessed elsewhere. Free social media can't give the in-depth coverage that quality newspapers provide, especially when it comes to analysis from a business perspective. Separately, The New York Times has an unparalleled crosswords section and a very strong recipe collection.
[0] https://www.axios.com/financial-times-million-digital-only-s...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/business/media/new-york-t...
Putting spiders on people is immoral because it causes psychological distress and potential harm due to spider bites. However, other behaviors are far more reasonable (e.g. asking for their newspaper, for a few dollars, or for a food sample from, say, an ice cream store). In isolation, these other behaviors sound perfectly reasonable in other contexts.
However, I agree with you for some of the other examples in the article (e.g. asking to try on someone's shoes or someone's sunglasses) wouldn't be reasonable or useful in other contexts.
I may not like it, but people regularly approach to ask for money, to sign up for a recurring donation, to sign a petition, to give a flyer, to sell a CD of music (yes, even in modern times), or to give a product sample. I may also get photographed by a street photographer. A small request that can help someone with their problems looks relatively mild compared to most of these other actions.
Both activities have a useful end, and would let someone assertively say no.
From the article: "Examples would be asking for their newspaper, or asking for a few dollars, or a phone number, or to try on their shoes. Or going into a store and asking for some free food. [...] I asked for a number of newspapers. I asked to take the plastic flowers from a storefront. I asked to borrow board games from the board game store. I asked to climb a ladder that a construction worker was setting up – and he let me!"
For what it's worth, the food sample and plastic flowers requests are made from businesses, were the requests aren't too unreasonable (samples are normal to ask where I live, and the flower request can be paid back with repeat business). However, I admit that the sunglasses request was strange (along with the suggestion to try someone's shoes).
I like the spirit behind asking if you can do others favors, but I predict it might weaken the exercise. The behavior is targeting a reluctance to ask for help and favors from others when it counts (it's important for long-term wellbeing to have a balance between taking and giving, versus just giving). It's easier to get rejected when asking to help another person, versus when facing rejection when doing something for yourself (e.g. applying to a job or opportunity).
In the long run, it's likely worse for society as a whole if people have social anxiety that could be treated. Left untreated, social anxiety can lead to antisocial behaviors and other psychological ailments (e.g. severe depression). If I can respond to a minor request that helps in some way to alleviate this, I don't mind. Part of the issue is related to the degree of the ask. I genuinely wouldn't mind someone asking me for directions, as it's a short-term commitment that is a quick ask (and if it would, I can just decline to help). If anything, most people would feel positively by being able to help another person in a minor way.
I wouldn't even frame it as selfish. Leaving anxiety untreated can cause behavior that can be seen as selfish down the road, while actively seeking to treat it via minor requests can help one be in a better position to help others down the road.
The favors seem harmless, with examples from the article including asking to try someone's sunglasses or to meditate with someone. Activities like these are also a part of exposure therapy for people with anxiety and/or a speech disorder.
Separately, though this depends on your location, I already disbelieve that someone asking me for something has a good reason (which is a common attitude in dense cities). I immediately assume they're trying to pull a scam or sell me something, and most of the time, I'm correct. (A funny example of this attitude is one of the top posts on r/AskNYC, though I'm not based there [0].) If someone were to approach me just as an exercise to address a psychological issue, that would be a far better outcome than what I would expect.
[0] "Millionth Cyclist on Manhattan Bridge" https://old.reddit.com/r/AskNYC/comments/dk76kv/millionth_cy...
Despite this, regular chance encounters are alive and well. You can go to the gym, hang out at a pub, or stay at a coffee shop. People are typically more receptive to speak in these contexts, all of which can't be replicated in a digital space due to the reliance on physical equipment (e.g. weights, exercise machines, drinks, and coffee machines). Martial arts in particular can really expose you to people of different ages, socioeconomic groups, and interests.
Outside of these, I believe that conferences and seminars are a good way to meet others, which the internet helps with. I can see technology making these in-person activities less intuitive (it's so easy to just spend time on social media), but if there's a will to see others, technology can help rather than harm.
I've also experienced problems with Firefox (especially with speed) when using any Google Suite apps (Docs, Sheets). I used to exclusively use Firefox, but some of my work as a volunteer requires social media account management (via Instagram) and GSuite apps for collaboration.
As far back as ancient Rome, vendors still used advertising and marketing. This included word-of-mouth advertisements and billboards (such as in Pompeii before the volcanic eruption). [0]
In the 1900s, newspaper advertising was a major source of advertising. Now that fewer people read print newspapers, advertising has shifted to internet ads and email newsletter ads.
Technology evolves, and marketing evolves to keep up. Even non-profits have significant marketing investments today. I encourage you to actually try to run an organization, for-profit or non-profit, and try to sustainably achieve the mission while rigidly adhering to the ideal that companies shouldn’t use marketing.
If you work, marketing pays part of your salary. A company can’t survive without it.
Marketing includes the “Who’s hiring?” threads on the front page; word of mouth recommendations; and job postings on LinkedIn. If you’ve found a job that pays your bills, marketing played a role.
Software development is important, but marketing is also important, and it actually works. Most companies can't survive without effective marketing.
[0] https://devjac.dev/posts/2021-05-29-my-personal-creed-of-emp...
I skimmed the comments before deciding to reading the article, and likely would have skipped on this submission if I didn't know about his work at Santa Fe (which was also mentioned in the article itself), as I associate McCarthy with his literary work. I had no previous awareness he has been working with scientists on technical writing.
The websites you have viewed, assuming they are in English, likely have a userbase that is primarily from the United States and countries that are part of the Western world. It's reasonable to believe that these countries (which have shared values) have genuinely shifted in public opinion in support of the invaded country.
If you're looking for the other side, you can find it in forums which have a userbase from countries that are not part of the Western world, and share different values. However, the views are more neutral for pragmatic purposes (due to prior relationships with Russia), rather than actively in support. [1]
Pragmatically, the war is not in the interest of most users across the globe. It represents an escalation that could plausibly lead to nuclear war if a NATO country were to intervene, which is in nobody's interest. It also affects daily life in other countries as gasoline prices are up across the world, and the sanctions will damage to economies outside of Russia. Emotionally and ethically, it's hard to see the footage of civilians dying and getting blown up by missiles as part of the attack.
I genuinely don't see a framing where it's a reasonable position to support the war without a massive logical leap or emotional stretch, and believe that other users in Western nations have arrived at the same conclusion.
[0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/world/asia/asia-russia-uk...
My experience is the opposite. I purchased a Mac for the first time due to the M1 chips, and there is no other option I could find to emulate Windows on these chips except for Parallels (Boot Camp currently doesn't work on M1 chips, and VMWare Fusion only has a preview version for the chips currently available).
Outside of business, you can consider learning how to cook a great meal, or learn a martial art for recreation and mastery.