Technology

60079 readers

3302 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

125

I'm worried that in the future we will be forced to use smartphones just like in China (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by ULTIMATEDEAD@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In China, you can't exist without a smartphone, because for all existential things you have to do (paying bills, buying tickets etc.) , you are forced to use the almighty wechat app. Smartphones are a tool to manipulate and to spy on the population. It is a tool utilized by the ruling class, to control the masses. I hate the future and I hate "progress".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MaybeItWorks@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Obviously they will figure out how to get a kid to their parents are not going to kidnap a child. I’m also aware that there are reasons other than being poor to not have a cellphone. Again, you are thinking logically and not like a school administration. It is my experience that school administrators can be quite illogical. If you don’t want to use a phone, you are 100% going to end up fighting with school staff. They’re not going to like exceptions to their processes for any reason. They will fight you to get you to conform. It’s a school after all.

[–] gartenzaun@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

To be fair, I'd say that's a fight worth fighting

[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.

They will fight you to get you to conform.

Stripping out the somewhat bizarre manipulative language, yes, of course any organization is going to want you to use their systems to streamline their processes; it's far more efficient to have everyone using the same the system than for it to be a hodgepodge of different methods to achieve the same goal. Does that really strike you as odd?

[–] MaybeItWorks@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it is not odd. I’m not even sure why you are disagreeing with me at this point. I made an off the cuff comment you felt compelled to “correct.” I picked one population potentially impacted by a stupid policy. I did not say it was the only population potentially impacted by a policy. I’m simply speaking colloquially more than anything. Why you feel compelled to read so much into that, I do not know.

[–] joe@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is my experience that school administrators can be quite illogical.

This is the part of your comment I should have quoted, sorry. This gives the impression that school administrators are somehow set apart from the general population's propensity to being illogical.

[–] MaybeItWorks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, saying that a subset of the population is illogical does not preclude the larger population from being illogical. You inferred incorrectly.

At this point you’re just looking for quotes to try to “correct” and grabbing the wrong quotes. Weird way to spend your time trying to disagree with someone when there is no disagreement.

[–] joe@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't grab the "wrong" quote-- I neglected to grab a quote at all. Oh no, did I do something wrong again by correcting you? haha

[–] MaybeItWorks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bro, are you on drugs?

The text below is your entire comment before your updated quote comment. It contains a section where you quoted me. So it’s not that you neglected to quote. At this point I don’t even know what you are talking about. You’re all over the place.

You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.

They will fight you to get you to conform.

Stripping out the somewhat bizarre manipulative language, yes, of course any organization is going to want you to use their systems to streamline their processes; it's far more efficient to have everyone using the same the system than for it to be a hodgepodge of different methods to achieve the same goal. Does that really strike you as odd?”

[–] joe@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This should have been my comment, bro (lol):

It is my experience that school administrators can be quite illogical.

You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.

[blahblahblah the rest of my comment here.]

Keep digging that hole haha.

[–] MaybeItWorks@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Who is digging in a hole? I just disproved your statement outright and that’s only a single thread I could pull on at this point.

A little summary of the situation: You said you grabbed the wrong quote. I agreed with implicitly on that and noted how all over the place you were just trying to find any reason to disagree with me. So you shifted to claiming that you didn’t use wrong quotes, that you never quoted me at all. I show you that you did quote me. Then you shift back to saying you did have the wrong argument/quote to begin with. Somehow you think this makes me look as though I am digging? Ok.

You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.

Nothing I stated indicated I am under this impression. Again, speaking to a subset of the population (school administrators) in context of conversation about that population does not necessitate it is an exception of the superset. I can draw you pictures on why this inference you made is flawed, but I see no point in that.