E' un po' che non posto, anche perche' di solito occorre che ci sia qualcosa che mi stimola a scrivere. Complice un cambio di progetto e la voglia di badare ad altro, l'andazzo attuale si amplifica nella trasformazione incredibilmente profonda della stampa nazionale italiana.
In a world where social networks have inundated society, bringing about significant changes, a debate arises regarding the alterations made to collective psychology. However, amidst the examination of communication methods, one crucial aspect is often overlooked: the lost art of listening.
Negli ultimi giorni, per una serie di coincidenze, mi sono ritrovato ad approfondire la teoria della "montagna di merda". Questa teoria, che scrissi in un momento di frustrazione, aveva lo scopo di spiegare perché il debunking è destinato a fallire contro le notizie false. Ciò che ho notato è che, nel corso del tempo, il significato del mio post è stato sutilmente alterato e distolto dal suo punto centrale.
I find myself in a situation where at the mere mention of "evolutionary psychology," my hand instinctively reaches for my pistol. I know it's a strong image, but lately, there has been a wave of individuals who try to justify their behavior by claiming it's the most sensible course of action in terms of evolution. Then they spew out their daily load of nonsense. These "self-proclaimed evolutionary experts" seem to be abundant, especially on YouTube, and they often hail from a country with the worst educational system in the world.
During this period, there's been a lot of talk about the "Scandal" surrounding the famous metal band "Rammstein," and honestly, as soon as I read the initial claims, I stopped reading the rest. Or rather, I stopped reading it while giving any weight to the accusations. Just another wealthy man having to pay his dues to the so-called #metoo movement. And I have plenty of good reasons to say so.
As a systems architect, I am compelled to always consider two things among many: system capacity and costs. This translates into two questions: "how does it scale in capacity?" and "how much does it cost, and who pays?" These are two questions that few are asking when they place their trust in federated systems like the Fediverse. Let me be clear, I find it amusing and it's a place where I enjoy being. But this does NOT mean that I truly believe everything will be that way one day.
In our youth, when idealism reigns and cynicism takes a backseat, we tend to embrace the game of moral categories—the game of 'good versus evil'—with relative ease. The trouble with this game arises when we attempt to apply these categories within a divisive framework, that is, a framework that is meant to be applicable to politics.
In gioventu', quando si e' molto idealisti e poco cinici, si tende ad accettare con una certa facilita' il gioco della categorie morali, cioe' il gioco del "buono/cattivo". Il problema di questo gioco nasce quando si tenta di applicare queste categorie in un modello divisivo, cioe' in un modello che sia applicabile in politica.
Ah, the age when memories of "adult" events are crystal clear, and you, my dear, are fortunate enough to possess such clarity. It is during this juncture that you find yourself pondering what has mercilessly slain the appetites, desires, and pleasures within Western society. And why must you wonder, you ask? Well, if you wish to leave an indelible mark upon the world, you must first contemplate upon whom you shall bestow this mark. Who is the culprit? Whose countenance shall you fracture?
Today, while reading the news from the fediverse, I came across the remnants of an old discussion, which, due to the decision of some attention-seeking individuals, is being repeatedly brought up in an unnecessary and endless controversy. This serves as evidence that the Italian-speaking fediverse has a significant problem.