I get the sentiment, but I doubt that something so complex as 'healthy' can be put on a scale from analog to digital (which also felt more like a scale of simplistic to complex/complicated). Sounds like relative simplistic is your thing, and that's great! However, I think this is something that would differ for everybody. I would've liked more background on why something is actually healthier. At this time it felt more like your personal preference to me.
I think a second film to explore this topic is necessary. But I believe that “healthy” in this case is the balance between intelligence given by the device and intelligence required by the device.
The scale doesn't really make sense. An analog clock is not more digital than a sun dial, they're both entirely analogical (as in they don't use binary to store information). I believe what you're referring to is how much these technology rely on the intelligence of the user, in that case the scale should be "no A.I" to "A.I". All of the technologies mentioned are healthy, as in they don't damage the user in any way. I think what really could be making digital technologies "unhealthy" is internet access. Typewriters are so cool but writing on a computer is much more practical, that is if you don't count the distraction that arise from internet usage. The problem is we associate social media and unproductive habits to digital technologies while they can perfectly be used without them. But I get it, using analogical tech feels refreshing and somewhat healthier in our minds because it frees us from the anxiety and addictiveness that we experienced on digital tech.
Well that wouldn't really fit with the narrative that the video is trying to push. I agree with you that the scale doesn't make much sense, also there's been this sentiment that technology should not be embraced and instead we should maintain pervious ways of doing things. There's this big idea that technology can only be seen as "good" or "bad" when I'd say it is either in a spectrum, or removed from the spectrum and we can only judge how people themselves use technology.
This has nothing to do with whether something is digital or not, but with how powerful we these digital devices are. Tech makes it easier to put a lot of features into a small space, however, this isn't a must. For example, we could also make a Computer without a functioning Browser.
agreed, one minute in and its clear this guy has no idea what hes talking about but just rationalises his (totally fine and understandable) unease with powerful tech
@@valentinbiehl9095 Even if he doesn't use the perfect nomenclature the message being said is interesting and thought-provoking, I think you ought to focus on that instead.
First :) I feel the same way about technology. At some point, the limit is within mankind itself and not within the technology. No one seems to be taking our human limits into account.
I think the healthy is really biased, just a simple thought, if Ai cars can reduce even 10% of accidents it would save 100 000 lives each year, without counting non fatal accident. That's a lot of health benefits for me.
2:23 thats simply not true. There are 60 minutes in an hour. One quater of 60 is 15. It doesnt have to relate to the circle. Linguists will be able to tell you that this sort of language is incredibly common though. Think about the saying "hang up the phone" or "can you rewind that" or "film this" almost nobody is using ohones that require being hung up to end, tape or film. But we all know what people mean when they say those things. Most people cant tell you the etymology of most of the words they use. There are some words/phrases that we dont know the etymology of. But that doesnt stop us communicating and being understood A great example of that is how your using the word digital. Digital vs analog doesnt mean what you ssy in this video. Digital refers to things thay are integer based, a finite number of catsgories if you will. Where as analog is a spectrum. But you use the concept of digital and analog as an analogy tor the spectrum of level of enhineering. Calling over enginnered things "digitsl" and under "analog" regardless of the fundamental technologies at play. Ut we were able to understand you because of things like context clues. You're oversll thesis is fundamentally flawed. What is truly healthy is recognising we are all unique and have our own preferences for things. A one size fits sll solution what ever balance of "digital" or "analog" will not and cannot be bealthy for everyone
This was a cool visual with good examples and i personally think the word choice makes sense, i also like how you didnt just immediately say entirely analog is better as that would just be nonsense as tech does add to the world in a beneficial way that allows for a more rapid growth of humans, i think i agree with the boundaries for the health lines. Also that typewriter is dope
I like the video. There's a Carl Sagan quote that comes to mind in this sense. I won't write it because it's easy enough to find in it's full length and context on the internet, but it echo's a similar point that you shared here. I personally believe that the problem with digital is less so in the intelligence required for the operation of the tool or device, and moreso to do with the obfuscation of function. It's tools that are black boxes, that we cannot understand the inherent function of that I see as problematic. With too many 'black boxes' in our lives we begin to feel seperated from the world around us, only interacting with it through these unknowable interfaces.
While i think this scale provides an interesting way to categorise and think about different technologies, i would appreciate some background on why you believe a balance of digital and analogue is healthy.
A proper balance of intelligence given by the technology and intelligence required by the user I think is ideal. If you go too far to the right, too much intelligence is given by the device, and too little is required by the user. Too far left and it’s the opposite. I believe that the middle of the spectrum strengthens our independence from the tech just enough or the “healthy” amount. I think a second video would be necessary though to further explore this topic.
![กิโลเมตรที่ 0 เดินทางรอบโลกไม่ใช้เครื่องบิน [Around The World Ep. 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/toJG9oofLFY/mqdefault.jpg)
I get the sentiment, but I doubt that something so complex as 'healthy' can be put on a scale from analog to digital (which also felt more like a scale of simplistic to complex/complicated). Sounds like relative simplistic is your thing, and that's great! However, I think this is something that would differ for everybody.
I would've liked more background on why something is actually healthier. At this time it felt more like your personal preference to me.
I think a second film to explore this topic is necessary. But I believe that “healthy” in this case is the balance between intelligence given by the device and intelligence required by the device.
The scale doesn't really make sense. An analog clock is not more digital than a sun dial, they're both entirely analogical (as in they don't use binary to store information). I believe what you're referring to is how much these technology rely on the intelligence of the user, in that case the scale should be "no A.I" to "A.I".
All of the technologies mentioned are healthy, as in they don't damage the user in any way. I think what really could be making digital technologies "unhealthy" is internet access.
Typewriters are so cool but writing on a computer is much more practical, that is if you don't count the distraction that arise from internet usage.
The problem is we associate social media and unproductive habits to digital technologies while they can perfectly be used without them.
But I get it, using analogical tech feels refreshing and somewhat healthier in our minds because it frees us from the anxiety and addictiveness that we experienced on digital tech.
Well that wouldn't really fit with the narrative that the video is trying to push. I agree with you that the scale doesn't make much sense, also there's been this sentiment that technology should not be embraced and instead we should maintain pervious ways of doing things. There's this big idea that technology can only be seen as "good" or "bad" when I'd say it is either in a spectrum, or removed from the spectrum and we can only judge how people themselves use technology.
This has nothing to do with whether something is digital or not, but with how powerful we these digital devices are. Tech makes it easier to put a lot of features into a small space, however, this isn't a must. For example, we could also make a Computer without a functioning Browser.
agreed, one minute in and its clear this guy has no idea what hes talking about but just rationalises his (totally fine and understandable) unease with powerful tech
@@valentinbiehl9095 Even if he doesn't use the perfect nomenclature the message being said is interesting and thought-provoking, I think you ought to focus on that instead.
First :)
I feel the same way about technology. At some point, the limit is within mankind itself and not within the technology. No one seems to be taking our human limits into account.
I think the healthy is really biased, just a simple thought, if Ai cars can reduce even 10% of accidents it would save 100 000 lives each year, without counting non fatal accident.
That's a lot of health benefits for me.
2:23 thats simply not true. There are 60 minutes in an hour. One quater of 60 is 15. It doesnt have to relate to the circle.
Linguists will be able to tell you that this sort of language is incredibly common though. Think about the saying "hang up the phone" or "can you rewind that" or "film this" almost nobody is using ohones that require being hung up to end, tape or film. But we all know what people mean when they say those things.
Most people cant tell you the etymology of most of the words they use. There are some words/phrases that we dont know the etymology of. But that doesnt stop us communicating and being understood
A great example of that is how your using the word digital. Digital vs analog doesnt mean what you ssy in this video. Digital refers to things thay are integer based, a finite number of catsgories if you will. Where as analog is a spectrum. But you use the concept of digital and analog as an analogy tor the spectrum of level of enhineering. Calling over enginnered things "digitsl" and under "analog" regardless of the fundamental technologies at play. Ut we were able to understand you because of things like context clues.
You're oversll thesis is fundamentally flawed. What is truly healthy is recognising we are all unique and have our own preferences for things. A one size fits sll solution what ever balance of "digital" or "analog" will not and cannot be bealthy for everyone
This was a cool visual with good examples and i personally think the word choice makes sense, i also like how you didnt just immediately say entirely analog is better as that would just be nonsense as tech does add to the world in a beneficial way that allows for a more rapid growth of humans, i think i agree with the boundaries for the health lines. Also that typewriter is dope
I agree 100% with you Andrew
Fair points, good video.
I like the video. There's a Carl Sagan quote that comes to mind in this sense. I won't write it because it's easy enough to find in it's full length and context on the internet, but it echo's a similar point that you shared here.
I personally believe that the problem with digital is less so in the intelligence required for the operation of the tool or device, and moreso to do with the obfuscation of function. It's tools that are black boxes, that we cannot understand the inherent function of that I see as problematic. With too many 'black boxes' in our lives we begin to feel seperated from the world around us, only interacting with it through these unknowable interfaces.
As a researcher working with IT infrastructure and AI and also a hobbyist stone-age tool maker (flintknapping) I appreciate your video :) .
“One only familiar with a digital clock wouldn’t understand a quarter past 4”
Bro is onto absolutely nothing 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥
Nice work!
i’m confused on your definitions of analog and digital? they dont match with what i know them to mean
While i think this scale provides an interesting way to categorise and think about different technologies, i would appreciate some background on why you believe a balance of digital and analogue is healthy.
A proper balance of intelligence given by the technology and intelligence required by the user I think is ideal. If you go too far to the right, too much intelligence is given by the device, and too little is required by the user. Too far left and it’s the opposite. I believe that the middle of the spectrum strengthens our independence from the tech just enough or the “healthy” amount. I think a second video would be necessary though to further explore this topic.
@@andrew_loura I think I fundamentally agree with your point about independence, and look forward to a future video in more depth
PART TWO: Why Analog is Healthier Pt. 2
th-cam.com/video/3NlW1AiQac8/w-d-xo.html
very cool