currently i agree, only because it's designed that way from the manufacturer.
A solid state machine with a reasonable interface feels like an extension of self, but i suspect that everyone's ideal interface is different, meaning the more mass-marketable something is, the worse it fits, resulting in everyone ending up with bottom tier experience on hardware capable of providing so much more than the user will ever know.
@xj9 very much this.
I've upgraded servers often-ish through the years for selfhosting stuffs, but the one I care about the most is the one I'm hand-assembling of mostly secondhand/scavenged parts.
The unit (which #til is called a cybre-/cyber-deck) is large and slow by 2019 standards, lacks a builtin display, and mostly exists to help me disconnect from mainline 'nets.
Soldering the backplane from scrap copper gave me such feels, even though I wasn't actually making it work better (or technically at all), because my needs were being met in a way that merged art, technology, and minimalism in a tangible way.
Since learning about walkaway, I've wanted to contribute meaningfully to the movement, not just with the creation of a local community place of safety, but with my higher skills, engineer brain, and my underdeveloped-but-budding pencil art skills.
...still need to figure out how to share meaningful schematics/blueprints with the community at large.
@eryn I'm actually talking in a far more fundamental sense, thinkign of technology as "means to ends": method, process, device, material, system, etc.
Thinking about this for a while, it seems there are a few distinct modalities involved, and all provide _both_ benefits _and_ consequences or limitations, some obvious, some not.
This isn't a matter of just "stuff manufactured for the masses" but basics such as...agriculture and irrigation management, or early simple machines.
@eryn Though the dynamic accellerates greatly with complexity.
One way of thinking about this is that any technology is a node or set of nodes, with interactions, some desired, some not, some intentional, some not. The more complex, the more nodes and interactions. And the more nodes and interactions, the greater the likelihood of negative consequences, especially unforseen ones.
There's a lot of Joseph Tainter and Robert Merton bound up in this, FWIW.
All code is technical debt in the same way that municipal infrastructure is technical debt. (I can point you at a rabbit-hole of articles-I-found-fascinating on this subject.)
That doesn't *automatically* mean it's not worth the investment, but it certainly can end up costing more than it's worth... and that cost can be weaponized.
As an example of technology-as-debt going beyond code, take China's concrete debt. The country has poured more concrete in a decade than the US did in a century. But concrete doesn't last forever -- well-maintained half-life is about 100 years, poorly maintained is half that or less. That clock is ticking, and has both interest (maintenance) and principle (replacement) components.
I've got a bunch of them stashed here (all from the same site, but not all the same author): https://issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Filing_Room/to_file/2019#10_.28Wed.29_2
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!