I'd say it's a social mechanism more than anything else.

While I haven't used the service myself, I expect the UX steers people to generate video-based content themselves, which is an evolution from the Twitter-era "spontaneously text as many tweets as you want" vibe.

The "human" value of things versus the "computer" value of those same things are vastly different:

1. Text data may be one of the highest forms of human perception, but computers find storing it as trivial beyond enterprise-scale needs. Of course, it becomes important to a computer as soon as it's interpreted as code. 2. Photos are often on the level with text, but the data takes megabytes of information. 3. Video data typically adds a marginal increase in human value, but is typically data-heavy. 4. Interactive software packages with high-falutin' UX, most notably things like games, are the pinnacle of conveying human meaning, but also cost quite a ton of data.

I anticipate the next evolution in 10 years might be the development of shareable game-based experiences, with the deluge of amateurish production values we see in today's videos.

A huge part about whether honesty hurts or helps is the framing that revolves around it.

In this case, it's a matter of social expectations driven by the timing of that honesty:

* If someone is a completely unfiltered person and says the information audaciously and openly, the interviewer may simply see they have nothing to hide.

* On the other hand, if the person looks anxious (which could literally be nothing more than PTSD), then awkwardly blurts out the information, they may be interpreted as having more to hide, making that honesty appear worse than it is. Ironically, that was probably the optics that got my felony in the first place.

NOTE: I'm in the USA, so it may only apply here.

It all depends on the framing of the situation. For myself, I frame it as a few of the following, context-depending on how it's asked:

* (on a webform) "not applicable" in writing * (do you have a felony?) I do, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my role (because it really doesn't). * (will the background check yield anything we should know?) you'll see something, but it has nothing to do with the job.

If they keep pressing, and seem simply hesitant, I refer them to a webpage that articulates the story for them. It's behind me, I've grown from it to where it doesn't define me, and I'm proud that it's behind me.

If they get weird for the rest of the interview, I simply say "thank you for your time, but I don't believe this will be a good fit, please let me know if you change your mind", and I walk out of there to avoid wasting another minute with their bigotry.

Once I hit the 7-year mark, that background check won't yank any database association to my legal fiction unless they wish to dig. At that point, I can simply say "nothing will show on my background check" and it's completely honest.

The reason this continues to be a problem in the USA is because people aren't confident in what they've come through. The stigma exists because employees fold over and continue letting employers feel they have the right to discriminate over what happened, irrespective of how that person changed from their experience. I see my opposing any condescension as an effort to resist a social structure that creates a second-class citizen.

Genetics play a huge part as well. From birth, we're given a death clock, which goes downward as stressors hit us, then further as we relive that stress.

In other words, everyone would probably live to ~110 in a perfect, stressor-free world.

This may be taboo to discuss here, but the wording could phenomenologically transfer to "the love of commoditization and scalability of meaningful things that give power is the root of all evil".

Enjoying a beautiful sunset is an enhancement of the soul, but enjoying 10^100 identical sunsets has accrued enough diminishing return to be trivial to the soul.

You're forgetting that there's a secondary market for these things, similar to how subsistence farming is largely gone in lieu of the supermarket. Just purchase a share of camel slurry, and you're solid.

Actually, now that I mention it, that seems to be quite a bit like Jesus' problem with the currency conversion specialists in the temple: commoditization of something meaningful can lead to evil.

This is a natural product of how power works on the internet. Barring an algo that downgrades time spent, the people with the most power are proportionally the people who do the least things elsewhere.

I was clued into this when the BLM protests happened. When I poked into all the names of the protesters I could find who were present on-site, very few of them had day jobs.

The trouble goes back to a 1910's telegraph bill. The US created a de facto monopoly on each carrier for each zone of land. On a particular parcel of land, there is only 1 carrier for any telecom tech, with those parcels as tradable on a market. M&A has allowed it to become a bit of a duopoly (e.g., Verizon + ATT).

It did make sense at the time of the law: carriers kept clustering around the major metro areas and wouldn't expand to the boonies. Nowadays, that law has outlived its purpose.

The US has something like this already with cellular with MVNOs, driven by the free market.

The TL;DR is that the cost of cell towers is mostly the same irrespective of bandwidth (e.g., hiring a technician to break-fix as parts fail from weather conditions), so carriers figured out they could "rent" their leftover bandwidth.

Most of the "cheap" carriers are simply slinging together MVNOs from all the carriers (e.g., Boost Mobile, MetroPCS). It creates a weird situation where you get plenty of signal on off-peak hours and (often) the middle of nowhere, but at the expense of having no signal in larger metro areas at peak hours.

It's a natural trend cycle: things grow beautifully, they stagnate, their corruption load exceeds their productivity and they start declining, then they collapse in lieu of something new.

There's hope for revitalization, but only if it's caught early-on. I feel Mozilla doesn't have much time.

A cliche that may apply here is "follow the money". If your primary financiers are entities that prefer you to avoid competing with what that financier is producing, you're not looking at the interests of the userbase anymore.

Right, but is Mozilla leadership vampiracally extracting the last cash before the lights go out, are they desperately holding out for 00 to come up on the wheel, or are they just sat there with eyes screwed shut going "it's still 2008, it's still 2008"?