Intel Unveils New Low-Cost PC Platform - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10256/intel-unveils-apollo-lake-14nm-goldmont <comment><USER2> Another platform for which to overcharge customers and OEMs by $70-$120 by using the names "Celeron" and "Pentium", for what is essentially a $30 mobile chip. And they use the name "Lake" in there, too, to make people think it has anything to do with the Skylake and Kaby Lake platforms (which it doesn't from a CPU point of view - Intel stopped using the Core architecture for Celerons with the Haswell version).

When I asked them at a recent event why they were doing this they even had the nerve to say "because the performance is similar". No it's not. Haswell Celerons are _still_ almost twice as fast in single-thread performance as the latest Atom-based Celeron, and believe me the difference is very palpable. It's like comparing Core i3 and Core i7 in performance, or perhaps an even greater difference than that.

[https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2200&cmp%...](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2200&cmp%5B%5D=2541)

At first they pretended that the performance is "about equal" because they started using quad-core Atom Celerons vs the previous dual-core Haswell Celerons. But now they even scaled that back, and are using dual-core Atom- based Celerons that are weaker than the latest high-end ARM chips, yet have price-points that are 3-4x bigger.

I haven't given AMD a look in a long time, but I did recently because I knew Intel is scamming the market with these Atom-based Celerons and Pentiums, and surprise-surprise. In virtually every case, you're better off getting an AMD A6 APU for the same price over any Intel Celeron or Pentium. In fact AMD is a better value for money all the way up to Core i5. Intel's chips should only be preferred from Core i5 and beyond right now. And that could also change once Zen-based APUs start arriving in notebooks. AMD is still behind in power consumption, but if that's a real drawback for you, then you could wait for their 14nm chips later this year. But money/performance, AMD beats Intel up to Core i5.

<comment><USER3> Does AMD have integrated graphics to match or outperform Intel's offering?

<comment><USER4> Yes. Only the most expensive Intel chips with eDRAM outperform AMD's integrated graphics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sigh, instead of "cloudbooks" we want "standalonebooks". The cloud only makes things slow, unreliable and prone to privacy invasion.

<comment><USER6> For Chromebooks that's a problem, but if I'm not mistaken, the "cloudbook" moniker is meant for Windows Laptops with Chromebook-like hardware(though the name may cover Chromebooks too, I'm not sure). In those cases, They're perfectly usable standalone, they just have anemic storage and give you A year or two trial to Microsoft, and maybe other, cloud services. But they're not tied to it as much as Chromebooks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Intel has not specified the TDP of its new processors" Left out the one piece of info I was most interested in.

<comment><USER8> low cost is never the same as low TDP. never.

<comment><USER9> Low cost, high performance, low TDP - choose 2

<comment><USER7> Generally true, but all three improve over time

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a bit confused, how is this any different then the next iteration on the Atom line? Is it a significant improvement?

<comment><USER11> It basically is the next Atom. The Atom line has seen modest improvements over recent generations to the point that it now offers almost acceptable performance for everyday tasks. Perhaps this one will take it over the line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> reading this article on my new $84 Nextbook Flexx 9 with atom cpu... traveling EU and wanted something to book ryanair flights with, jot down a few notes with a keyboard, and not care if it' lost or stolen... it is definitely useable once the updates are all caught up... if they can be even faster, lighter, more power efficient, then yay for us consumers

</comment><comment><USER13> I have been wondering if this will be good enough for most Office PC. You have the latest Gen 9 GPU, which could do GPU acceleration on most browsers and OS rendering. H.264 / H.265 and Vp9 Hardware decoding.

If, the Goldmont offer a decent IPC improvement, this could very well fit 90% of Office PC use case. Despite being lower price, it could offer higher margin for all parties.

</comment><comment><USER14> I hope they make ones with dual intel gigabit network cards on the board.

</comment><comment><USER15> Does it run Linux out of the box?

<comment><USER16> Why Linux in particular?

<comment><USER17> FreeBSD would work too. When talking about low cost computers adding a $120 Microsoft fee kind of defeats the purpose.

<comment><USER18> OEMs don't pay a $120 fee to Microsoft.

I have seen quite a few laptops online where getting Linux pre-installed is actually more expensive than getting Windows. You can get them without OS, but then good luck getting everything to work.

<comment><USER19> That's because OEMs have to pay Microsoft for all devices sold, not all devices with Windows pre-installed. They get a better per device deal that way, but it also makes sure the version without Windows is not cheaper.

<comment><USER20> _> That's because OEMs have to pay Microsoft for all devices sold_

That's not true, and it has never been true.

Two decades or so ago, Microsoft _offered_ a deal like that for DOS, but the US Justice Department stopped it almost immediately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nice, but 4GB RAM is more like a joke nowadays.

<comment> mark-r Depends on what you're using it for - the emphasis seems to be on Chromebooks, despite the blatantly obvious name change. I doubt that there's any technical limitation to adding more, this is just where Intel expects the market to settle.</comment></comment>


HDD Shipments Down 20% in Q1 2016, Hit Multi-Year Low - <AUTHOR> http://anandtech.com/show/10315/market-views-hdd-shipments-down-q1-2016 <comment><USER2> As far as I can tell, this doesn't include SSDs. Spinning drive shipments are down -- I say GOOD RIDDANCE!

I run a repair shop, and one of the top computer repairs we do is to upgrade a spinning disk to a SSD.

A 240GB SSD runs $60-$65 these days, and is perfectly adequate for 99% of users. For that other 1% (which I include myself in) 512GB is adequate for 90% of _those._

HDD -> SSD is the single most cost-effective upgrade most people can do to breathe new life into an older computer. Going from a spindle drive to a SSD in most computers decreases boot time from ~4 minutes to ~30 seconds. Browsers load faster, videos don't stutter as much, the computer runs more silently. These are the issues most people care about.

A SSD upgrade means a 2010 MacBook Pro now has another 2-3 years of life, which is awesome news to most of the people we serve (who are often college students just trying to make it through college without their computer dying on them.)

I hope to see this chart go to 0 in the next few years as SSDs continue to decrease in price; this doesn't mean much bad news for the "PC industry", just ancient relics of a bygone age finally dying (and/or becoming super-niche for things like archiving where data transfer rates don't particularly matter.)

<comment><USER3> is SSD reliable? With no moving parts, it ssd should be more reliable, but that's not apparently the case. What's your experience?

Also, have you seen case of SSD data loss due as result of not powering up for couple years?

<comment><USER4> Close to 100% of the SSD failures I've seen have not been from being left off for a few years, nor from actual flash media failure, but from firmware bugs or, occasionally, mechanical failure.

(I've had very small sample size of SSDs not being powered up for a few years, but the few I have powered up after not powering on for years have had all their data retained. Ask me in another 15 years or so, though.)

<comment><USER5> > mechanical failure.

How does that happen?

<comment><USER6> I had my first computer fire, last year. One of the contacts in an SSD power connector delaminated, causing a short. The SSD was toast. Or at least, the power connector had melted. The power supply was toast. But with a new power supply, the machine itself is fine :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unfortunately for those of us who run home servers or NAS, prices and technology of large drives have also stagnated. I recently had to replace a few years old 4TB drive that had died. I was looking forward to grabbing an 8TB or something for the same price, but no. In fact, I ended up buying exactly the same model #, for only about $50 less. (I looked up the original receipt to check!)

</comment><comment><USER8> AWS, GCP and Azure must be making hay getting cheap drives from manufacturers who want to grow revenue / move units.

Regular S3 hasn't had a price cut in a while now.

<comment><USER9> You might be interested in our recent blogpost, white paper and Eric's USENIX keynote: [https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/02/Google-seeks- ne...](https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/02/Google-seeks-new-disks- for-data-centers.html) .

tl;dr: We're definitely still looking to buy spinning drives, but maybe they don't need to fit into a 2.5" or 3.5" PC sized slot.

<comment><USER8> Thanks!

I thought this quote from a recent James Hamilton blog post seemed like a plea for the hard drive manufacturers to get their act together... seems like he's not alone ;)

"But, leveraging an existing disk design will not produce a winning product for archival storage. Using disk would require a much larger, slower, more power efficient and less expensive hardware platform. It really would need to be different from current generation disk drives. Designing a new platform for the archive market just doesn't feel comfortable for disk manufacturers and, as a consequence, although the hard drive industry could have easily won the archive market, they have left most of the market for other storage technologies."

[http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2016/03/everspan-optical- co...](http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2016/03/everspan-optical-cold- stroage/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >>> Despite the drop in HDD unit shipments, both sequentially and year-over- year, total capacities shipped by the two leading makers of hard drives increased in Q1

Somehow misleading title. You don't buy a HDD, you buy storage capacity, and this metric is increasing, so it seems that the HDD industry is pretty healthy.

<comment><USER11> >> You don't buy a HDD, you buy storage capacity

Enterprises do. Desktop users don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Spinning disks still have their uses though. For example, they're ideal for a low-to-moderate amount of disk activity, and they last longer. Just make sure you schedule a daily defragment. Spinning disks are also great for 'cold storage' of files. I wouldn't store anything worthwhile on an SSD though because of their fail-rate. SSDs of course have their use cases too, but there are many trade-offs to using them exclusively for _everything_. I know people who exclusively work with SSDs naively thinking they're a progression from spinning disks. Not actually the case!

<comment><USER13> Daily defragmentation on a disk with "low-to-moderate" use? Maybe that's still a Windows thing, but on my Linux systems and OSX I haven't defrag'd in ages. (Actually just once on OSX when I was grasping at straws with a disk issue).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd love to see a graph with the same scale, charting the state of SSD sales.

<comment><USER15> Especially if the SSDs from iPads / tablets are included.

Although there's a big difference from eMMC crap and (even a low-cost budget) SATA3 SSD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find this even more interesting because a large chunk of the book "The Innovator's Dilemma" is about disruption in the storage industry.

I've not finished reading the book yet, but I think there were a few predictions about what would happen to companies that dominate the spinning drive market - it would be interesting to see how closely the predictions align with reality.

</comment><comment><USER17> I find this pretty interesting. Places like NetApp, Google, and Amazon can consume a lot of disk drives, and their customers don't seem particularly inclined to stop storing stuff.

So presumably this is just the shift of laptops over to SSDs rather than storage being less useful. If that is the case it would suggest that storage prices may stabilize a bit on a cents per GB basis.

</comment><comment><USER18> Before the "floods" you could get a WD Blue 1TB for $30 sometimes after rebate.

Now they are $50

Something about supply/demand doesn't make sense here.

<comment><USER19> Uh, the floods were real, killed real people, and damaged real property. No need for the scare quotes.

> Something about supply/demand doesn't make sense here.

Yep. It feels like there's a price-fixing investigation that runs periodically in each PC component market that finds solid evidence of price fixing and then forces the prices down.

<comment><USER18> Sorry, the quotes were a bad use of markup, I didn't mean to sound like the floods weren't significant.

I was trying to landmark that specific event as a measure of before and after.

<comment><USER19> Why did you choose to use double-quotes for emphasis rather than italics or underlining?

I'm not calling you out; the practice has mystified me for _ages_ and I see an opportunity to gain some information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> With stagnating broadband speed and lack of ultra high quality content out there it is hard to fill a drive.

</comment><comment><USER21> Maybe we don't need bigger drives? For installing software disk size has been irrelevant for some time - we always have space for software. Maybe after we have always space for films - then there is no other thing to fill up the disks?

<comment><USER22> Where do you store videos and music you work on? Where you do you store containers or vms or build artifacts for software development? Prices of SSDs have to come down at least 5 times to be in any way comparable (10x actually to match $/GB but 5x would be huge).

We absolutely need bigger drives because we will have bigger files. Think video (4k, 8k, VR, HDR), archive of operating system images for development, data to use for ML, NixOS style immutable operating systems, all the data from your personal IoT gadgets. Readily available larger storage gives us many benefits:

1\. requirement for OS stack to adapt (think ZFS)

2\. doing things we wouldn't consider possible at home before

3\. more complete backups with history

By enabling new things for the masses, we enable the development of new stuff by people in their free time.

Let's not mix tablet/phone use of storage with that of computers with keyboard+mice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The graphs tell exactly when those floods destroyed all those drive factories in Thailand: decline in shipments and spike in average price.

</comment><comment><USER24> HDD is to 2016 as DAT Tape was to 1996.

</comment><comment><USER25> i'm phasing out my laptops' hdd-with-bad-sectors by putting those into desktop and call them fud = fuck-u-drives</comment>


The haunting surrealism of Victor Brauner - <AUTHOR> https://dangerousminds.net/comments/the_haunting_surrealism_of_victor_brauner <comment><USER2> I was gonna comment on how some of the works appear to have been inspired by those of Max Ernst but seeing how they are contemporaries, it could've been the other way for all we know. Thanks for the share.

<comment><USER3> The entire surrealist movement knew each other, at least in its early days. They absolutely worked off each other's ideas. I think that Ernst and Tanguy match up together well, but also look at the works of Kay Sage and Dorothea Tanning (their wives, btw, which is likely why themes were shared amongst those four quite strongly), and you'll see how far some of the visual themes were shared. I always liked Tanning's work in particular because she used the surrealist themes as a starting point, but really took it her own directions, producing a large body of work over the years, including paintings, furniture, crafts, and writing.

Overall, the surrealist movement was an interesting moment in time, but if you like it, I recommend looking at the later works that came from the artists involved with that movement.

<comment><USER2> Will explore them. Thank you for the suggestions. I was heavily into Futurism and Dadaism during one of those phases back in college and devoured the works of Tzara, Schwitters, Russolo, Ball, Duchamp, Ernst etc. Those manifestoes still give me goosebumps. Fascinating times they were.

<comment><USER4> A couple of my favorites from the period are Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky - vibrant period for literature, as well.

<comment><USER3> Those were the favs of my main art professor, too. He was really into lines, and they both do great ones. Although it is possible that you need to be quite the art geek to be opinionated about awesome lines vs. just plain old lines.

<comment><USER4> That's really cool! My background is in lit, but I had the good luck of falling for a talented artist (whose specialty happens to be line work). I've learned a lot from her over the years but still not enough to be very opinionated about the quality of lines. Klee and Kandinsky just pop off the page to me. When I look at their pieces that best resonate with me, it's like looking at a small section of nature and understanding how full of live it is - and how much is going on that you can't see. I'm guessing a lot of people have similar experiences with different artists, and I love reading/hearing glowing reactions to artists I "don't get," because I usually learn a lot about both the artist and the writer/speaker.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Fall of CB Radio and Social Networking - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080307_004467.html

<comment><USER2> Facebook != the end-all-be-all of social networks

Facebook might get old, but connecting to other human beings over the internet will NEVER get old. If social networks go out of fashion, then it will be replaced by something that brings more intimate connection between one or more human beings via the internet.

Social networks fulfill a need to connect with others that is unparalleled to any other web based piece of software. The same way social networks built upon the portal as a more concrete way of connecting with others, the 'next big thing' will bring that level of connection even closer - if such a thing is ever created...

I find it interesting that social networks are all proclaimed to be doomed to extinction (and this is a meme that has been popping up in the media because of Facebook) yet one of it's ancestors, the message board, still persists to be an important way for people to connect with one another - _and I don't hear anybody spelling doom for message boards any time soon!_

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that is actually the point of the article. Not that the concept of connecting with people online will fail but that stand alone, don't do anything for you BUT connect you to people social networks will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> People used to make this same silly comparison about the Internet itself (when the web was really taking off in 95).

</comment><comment><USER4> Hopefully no one will ever make a song as horrible as "Convoy" about social networks.

</comment><comment><USER5> Scary analogy.

I remember a friend who was an early CB radio adopter. It was so cool riding around, talking to the few other early adopters or truckers. We'd look at all the other drivers who didn't have a clue what we were talking about, thinking that they were so lame. A year later, EVERYONE was doing it, so it just wasn't cool anymore.

Social networking going the way of the CB radio? That could be a big 10-4.</comment>


Are My Friends Really My Friends? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/style/who-are-my-real-friends.html <comment><USER3> Is it me or are we asking too much of our relationships? In the past, relationships were based on proximity more than anything else, but now int he world of endless choice, we seem to want more from our friends, our partners, our co-workers, etc.

I think the whole thing is just so tiring. I think almost everyone I know would do something if I were in trouble and if I asked them (to a point, I don't know anyone who would want to take care of me for a month - <USER2> myself).

I read recently that marriage is becoming the same thing where we want our partner to be EVERYTHING - the drinking buddy, the confidante, the psychological help, the travel partner... and supposedly that makes everyone unsatisfied with their partner because it's such a stupidly tall order. Do we hire people to do all those things for us too? On the other side though, if you find that person, you get REALLY good marriages. I would suspect the same is true with friendships. Instead of being worried whether a friend is a true friend, just relish that you have friends who can serve different purposes in your life and if you have a close one - enjoy it.

<comment><USER4> What is wrong from wanting friends that can give you more than just proximity?

<comment><USER5> I think that's the wrong way of looking at it.

In the past, when proximity was the biggest thing, we'd look to invest more in the people proximate to us.

They like something I don't? Okay, fine, I'll do it, so I have a friend. And vice versa. I may not really care about doing X, but it's a way to connect.

Now? Now we are willing to keep looking. We want perfect friends. We are less willing to invest time in people nothing like ourselves, because it's comparatively easy to find others.

Even as i kid, I remember friendships that were basically "This kid is in my neighborhood" or "This kid's parents go to the same church as my parents", and that was it. Oh, they liked to rollerblade? Okay, I guess I'll learn to do that. I like video games; they'd learn to like that. Etc.

Now? Now it's superhard; even places I'm proximate to others, why would I choose to spend time with them outside of the one activity that brings us in proximity?

<comment><USER4> Sounds loke a strawman to me.

I didn't like the people where I grew up with and now I found people I like.

And I didn't have to be nice to someone "just to have a friend"

<comment><USER5> If you didn't like any of the people around you, I will point out the one thing in common across all of those relationships.

I mean, I get it; I grew up in an extremely conservative area, while being very liberal. I had to rub shoulders with kids of farmers who didn't value education and etc. But if I wanted any sort of social life, I had to make due with the people there, find those who I shared -something- with, and I did. I found those with an interest in gaming, those who wanted something more out of life than just staying there doing what their parents did, those who read, etc, and in doing so I had to work harder, be more intentional, and expand in ways I wouldn't have had I been able to just switch social circles easily until I found one more palatable.

<comment><USER4> I just found people online and moved away from the village after high school.

That was 14 years ago and I never looked back.

I found people who gave the feeling they really understood me.

In the village I had nobody, only a few secretly facist nerds who thought they new everything there was to know...

<comment><USER6> I think you're proving the point OP was making. In the past you found people by proximity, as, not so long ago, there was no online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> disclaimer: i am only in my mid-twenties, so perhaps i lack sufficient perspective on this topic. i can only compare the landscape today against my childhood friendships.

i do remember having fewer, closer friends when i was younger. at the same time, i don't feel that we had much in common other than being the same age, in the same place, and being part of the "outgroup". i valued these relationships very much (and still do), but they represented the exhaustion of the local pool of viable friends. we spent so much time together and developed strong bonds mainly because there was no clear way to access a more global pool to select from.

today i have many acquaintances with whom i routinely share deep conversations over very specific interests (even irl!), and it is relatively easy to find more of these if i desire. while my social life is much more intellectually rich, it is definitely harder to develop a trusted confidant; conversations just never seem to naturally flow into that territory.

to me, it seems like the older style of friendship and the modern friendship occupy different places on roughly the same pareto frontier. you can certainly prefer one or the other, but i don't feel that either is intrinsically better.

<comment><USER8> Sometimes we think a friend does everything for us -- invites us out, listens to us, shares with us, teaches us, dares us, helps us grow, etc.

Reality is certain people are better at certain things. Some friends will always go out and show you a good time, but they're not going to challenge you to be a better person. When you can accept them for the gifts they're willing and able to give, that's when you're friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like some sort of a epidemic, the internet infecting the way of relationship development we had for decades.

Now we know where to get jobs -job boards-, where to get relationships -tinderlike apps and bars- but we have no idea for where to find people who we click with.

<comment><USER10> Personally I feel like many millenials (of which I am also one) just have too many distractions we can indulge in at home by ourselves now (internet, social media, youtube, netflix, video games), so there is no boredom to quench to force yourself out of your house to do stuff. For me, turning off autoplay on youtube and netflix, selling my video games, cancelling cable TV, quitting Facebook and Reddit have all had a net positive impact on my life. Of course there are still people in my generation who do go out and do stuff and you can be one of them too if you choose to be.

<comment><USER11> I don't disagree, but I also think this isn't merely a generational thing. I've long noticed my parent's generation slowly melting in front of TVs, flipping between boring show after boring show, hardly spending time doing other things or forming friendships. Millennials are really just like their parents, but for them the TV remote became their mobile phones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think there's a lot of people keeping 'casual' friends, just because they're there (online). And by that I mean not like a forum where you log in and see who's online or chat on topics of interest, in this case those 'friends' are there ready to communicate instantly, all topics are presented, etc.

I.e. they like posts, comment and stay across events of vague acquaintances because it's easier than 'un-friending' them (and maybe some FOMO too).

I.e.I.e. They're friends we'd otherwise do without, but yet put in light effort just because and it adds up to more than expected.

</comment><comment><USER13> My way of evaluating who my real friends are is by asking myself one question: "Are these the people I'd want to be around if war broke out?".

Similarly, a question I often ask myself to make sure I'm not becoming trivial and shallow: "Am I the kind of person people would want to be around if war broke out?".

</comment><comment><USER14> Back in the days when IRC ruled we were connected by interest instead of proximity. I think most of those friends also faded but that protocol had no persistence so we aren't reminded of them.

<comment><USER15> I just want to say that IRC is still pretty much alive and kicking. Come back, it's still as fun as it was.

<comment><USER16> I still hang around one channel for an Unreal Tournament (then Half-Life 2) mod. 15 years at this point and some great people are still in there (and been interesting to see how everyones lives have changed after meeting )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> According to Aristotle [0], there are three types of friendship: friendship of utility; friendship of pleasure; friendship of the good.

I find this to be a useful framework for considering the varying kinds of platonic relationships one can have.

[0] [https://stpeterslist.com/the-3-types-of-friendship- according...](https://stpeterslist.com/the-3-types-of-friendship-according-to- aristotle)

<comment><USER18> Maybe he was wrong and oversimplified relationships.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Life long friends can be formed anytime but I think you make such friends during undergrad. Back in India during Engineering (i.e ungrad ) I made 8 life long friends because it was age where I was bit mature and not childish (compared to my time in school) , had no responsibilities (financial) and had lot of time , so it was so nice to get along with ppl and make a good bond. Compared to other phases of life where I am either childhish or there lot competition between group of people where real motive of forming bond is different.

</comment><comment><USER20> Put away the phone, and unfollow "friends" on social networks aggressively if you're not a fan of the dynamics described in the article.

</comment><comment><USER21> Perhaps we need a Twitter-like restriction: not a limitation of 140 characters, but instead a limitation of 140 friends.

<comment><USER22> It's called Dunbar's number, and I agree all social media platforms should have that limitation by default. Once you reach that number, all the rest should be followers (if you agree to allow them to follow you).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number)

<comment><USER23> So you're saying there /are/ things that the social sciences can contribute to data science? This is my complete lack of surprise...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Friendship, as defined in this day and age, is overrated. It's my opinion, for sure. But let me tell you why I feel this way.

As the article mentions, Gen Y's idea of socializing is having lots of "friends" that remain as such because of technological ties, and chatting through IM and photo sharing. The problem with this form of socializing, for me, is that much of it is a result of everyone's ulterior motive to look good and obtain social validation. In all honesty, I haven't proven to be a very likable person, but I hesitate to have people add me as a "friend" on social media because next thing I know they're going to include group photos of me in order to covertly signal "I have so much fun and so many friends! Look at me! Look at me!" Worse yet, they'll feel _that_ much better that I'm going to add reactions to their banal postings, making them feel like everything they have to say is socially approved of.

It's all gross.

By the by, I've learned that I can go very long periods of time without being around friends(I'm talking months) and, well, I don't die. In fact, I'm pretty happy that I can spend time doing what I want without being hounded to go see X movie or hang out at Y place. Those things can be good here and there, but they're not all life is about. Friends also tend to bring drama that brings nothing to my life; most drama is hyperbole and people bring it upon themselves. Those same drama-friends inevitably ask for advice, but not because they actually want help, but because they want you to _validate_ the decision they've already made.

I've had my periods in life where I felt terrible for having few or no friends. There is definitely a downside, especially when you're younger. But the pursuit of friends is a sign that a person is lacking self-esteem, and perhaps confidence in the one or two friends they already have. As I've gotten older, having friends for reasons other than just the simplicity of having someone to shoot the shit with on occasion has fallen by the wayside. Just as I've given up with the futile pursuit of working my ass off for the lie that working hard is a virtue in and of itself, and as I've given up on trying to pursue the illusion of salvation provided by relationships, I just don't even care anymore about maintaining friends or social circles.

Yeah, it'd be one thing if I was literally alone for a very long time. But it would actually take effort to be truly alone, I gather, for most people. No matter where I've been, or how old I am, someone eventually manages to enter my life and become more than just an acquaintance. We can chat it up on a regular basis, and usually have enough familiarity that we know we can count on each other for small things. It just seems to work out that way, and that accounts for most of what I need out of people; I don't need to share every moment of my waking being with them. Some people have got it tough, and I've known some people who have real issues that hinder them in making even basic connections with people. But, for the average person, I think they'd be surprised to still manage to make friends even if they permanently turned off all their devices.

I do have a best friend, and that is something special. We rarely see each other anymore, but that's where confidence comes in. He and I have known each other for long enough that, no matter what, we're always going to be friends. If work gets in the way that means we won't see or even talk to each other for months or years, it's like no time has passed when we do get to meet again. We don't fret about these things because life really does move on whether we are in the same room or not.

As great as that friendship is, I would function very much the same without it. I hope it doesn't hurt my friend to read this if he ever does, although I'm almost positive he would have guessed that of me, and I think he's much the same. I've learned to be content enough with my own being, my own thoughts, that the need for other people has been greatly diminished. I'm sure some of that is simply a function of getting older, having had enough experiences, and having one's hormones become increasingly scant.

Your friends are what you make of them, and I don't think a lot of people's ideas of what makes a friend is worth as much as social media has made it appear. It's really fine to simply accept that friendship can and usually does have a very low bar, thus, if your friendships seem transient, it's just a function of average people socializing with other average people, and gradually meeting better people over time. Being content in your being and valuing yourself means that this question of "Are my friends really my friends?" isn't all that important.

</comment><comment><USER24> If you show up to my funeral I'll be happy.

<comment><USER25> If you don't go to folk's funerals how can you expect them to come to yours?</comment></comment>


"Secret" is far less secret than you think. - <AUTHOR> http://pando.com/2014/06/05/secret-is-far-less-secret-than-you-think/

<comment><USER2> I don't think this can be construed as mismatched user/provider expectations, or users "not understanding" the EULA.

Insidious.</comment>