Um, this article has the same plot as the movie Sphere from the 90s.

Sphere featured a underwater spaceship, named Basura investigated by a guy named Norman which included unkownable and exciting information. The ship had a giant golden sphere which allowed the crew's scariest wishes to come true. Lots of study sequences with the same tone and pacing.

Same overall structure here, with grieving over children over the past replacing the fear of wishes.

I feel like I shouldn't be typing this out... even the dates are similar...

Meaning is not an easy thing to communicate. Each philosophy puts meaning in different places, meaning of words, meaning of an image, meaning in work, ect.

Corporate jobs don't often have the capacity to provide a meaningful role. I hazard the suggestion, an internal sense of meaning can better cultivated from other sources.

What worked for me internally was a lot of literature and imaginative study that resulted in a view that fits boring and exciting tasks alike in a larger, structured meaning.

Nobody can really answer or help properly, unless someone close to you, can see the real 'me' and meaning in you and what you might explore next.

Also practically speaking meaningful jobs arent always the best places to work. Meaning often (not always) is an end in itself that does not naturally create profitable business models.

+1

A related idea is George lucas's dis-satisfaction with his own work. He spent so long working on it he can see where he fell short of what he wanted to do and how it's held together with duct tape and glue.

He has a low opinion of his own movies. When I know the tradeoffs I make to get the project finished, I come to similar feeling.

When I'm working just for my own pleasure/hobby, sometimes any old thing will work to make me feel good about it, even when it's not great.

But when you've made something, you see every flaw, every wart, and every little thing that wasn't quite what you were aiming for.

Nobody else sees any of that, because nobody else knows what you were aiming for. It's the curse of creating things.

I also have a low opinion of most of his movies and find that in reworking them, he has overworked them. My favorite remains THX-1138. Just bare bones and mostly quiet performances.

Colour is used as a metaphor for the relationships lawyers want to create and the structuralist view that how you create logic matters as much or more than the content of the logic. Mushed together into one concept.

Then the author teases out the tangled truth. Logic and binary code can't support inherent relationships. Ones and zeros don't come with a 'colour'.

The ethical problems in the article conflates a symbolic representation generated by computer monitors from code, with the code itself being the problem. Like blaming the wind for carrying a dirty limerick into your ear.

Unfortunately the best way to deal with symbols is to burn them down. Detect and delete dirty pictures. You could make the Colour of generating unethical symbols illegal. Detect and prosecute after the fact like we do with most crimes. But not the binary code itself being illegal, just the symbolic representation of CP.

Also, DRM failing in the article's examples, is a feature not a bug. It gives a temporary structure to digital rights and doesn't constrain code re-use (like a software patent would) or try to lock down ownership of logic.

There's an old story I fail to remember well.

One dog asks another why do you sleep inside on the rug in the warm, while I live outside in the doghouse on a chain?

The inside dog answers, because I entertain and you serve.

You can't have a perception without an external thing existing.

If you're born tabula rasa and everything you know is learnt, then everything your senses know came from an external object which exists independently of your senses.

Are we going to do Kant vs Nietschze until the end of time?

As long as Kant's would-be defenders defend counterfactual positions only, then I suppose there's no reason the debate would ever end.

> If you're born tabula rasa

There's lots of evidence that just isn't so. If nothing else, we appear to be equipped with minds which are better suited than random chance to build a "meaningful" model of the world around us.

Ok but that's a hypothesis you make. To me it is absurd how an external object can exist independently of perception. What does it even mean that anything "exists" without senses to perceive it?

What are you perceiving if it doesn't really exist out there somewhere?

The solar system existed before our senses received the information that it did. Insurance companies scan for pre-existing medical conditions before they discover them in new patients.

Why would you seek new objects, if there were not objects out there to find?

You have to sever all relationships to un-sensed, but knowable objects, to live only in the senses. That kind of reduction is too much to ask.

You can't perceive the solar system, but whatever it is you are experiencing, it exists now and you can only know about it through your senses. It doesn't necessarily follow that it existed prior to you experiencing it, it wouldn't make any sense to say that because "existence" is an experiential claim that requires someone to have the experience of it, in the present moment. Past, future, time flow are all hypotheses. You never experience time, you are only experiencing the now.

However, I'm not saying that things don't exist, it's that they do exist but not independently of the conscious agent that has the experience of them. The universe and the thinking agent that is currently perceiving that universe, come into existence simultaneously, in the act of perceiving/thinking.

The mind arises out of the necessary universe that is required for a mind that observes it to exist.

There could be infinite of other universes (or other things "out there" i can't experience), but those claims makes no sense since because for something to exist it must have a conscious agent experiencing it as existing. There can't be a universe in the void, simply rocks. Even "rock" is something that is defined by thought and can't exist independently of it.

Gotta say the obvious, suicide shouldn't be the bottom floor metric for determining if social media is hurting people.

People are just saying words.

Addiction meant something in old 1500s Latin. It meant to 'devote or give onself up to a habit or practice'.

Offering one's self up to social media can allow you to mechanistically escape pain, but it also does damage at the same time.

The more you offer yourself up to social media, you are giving away a chunk of your mental health to be liked and adored by instagram.

How could anyone own their mental health, when you can dump your hopes and dreams into the void anytime you want, to offer yourself up in hopes of relief.

Gabor only tells a quarter of the story.

Psychologists don't make for good relationships. They break their own rules and ethics as much as anyone else.

Believable relationships are scarce in the workplace.