zlacker

>>chagha+(OP)
I love my Pebble, my phone is always on completely silent mode and nobody but me feels or hears the Pebble. It feels quite private. I can ignore it during conversions and see what it has to say whenever I look at my wrist later. I can blindly dismiss notifications, knowing they are still open on my phone for later. I never miss important calls but I can also refuse calls without looking away from someone I have a conversation with just by touching my wrist.

But oh man is it infuriating when the Pebble shows me a spam message, for some reason it evokes hate against the spamming company to a much larger the degree than it does on my phone. I'm much more selective about what app can have notification on the Pebble. It's strange, the smartwatch just feel closer to me and it feels like people mess with me when "they use it" to disturb me for useless things.

Sorry, not really a point in this comment but it felt significant to the point of the website.

>>teeker+pc
I think it's relevant. I think there should be an addendum: the human should have total control over "how important" a given technology is to it. So for example, there's maybe 3 apps on my phone out of 50 that are allowed to use notifications. I'm always horrified when I pick up my mom's phone and it's swamped with notifications, popups in the status bar, lock screen flooded over, yuck.

>>komali+3k
Consider, when describing an arbitrary and even perhaps notional human in the singular, using literally any pronoun other than 'it'. Neuter humans are very rare, and, at least in English, using grammatically neutral pronouns to refer to humans has a long and unlovely history.

Use the singular 'they' instead. If you find that too grammatically egregious to be borne (as I do), alternate masculine and feminine pronouns (as I do). Or default to the feminine pronoun except when speaking specifically of someone male. Or default to the grammatical, if presently unfashionable, collective use of masculine pronouns. Just, seriously, do something that doesn't entail referring to a human as 'it'.

>>throwa+mp
Why does it matter when the meaning is clear and unambiguous?

>>burkam+nF
Why doesn't it?

>>throwa+mH
Because the point of language is to communicate, and if you've communicated effectively then you're done. What is the history you were referring to? Does using "it" offend some people, or something?

>>burkam+5N
Yes. "It" as a pronoun is used to denigrate marginalized group such as ethnic minorities, individuals who do not adhere to traditional binary gender norms, or other groups that one may wish to, in a way, remove their humanity through pronoun usage. "It," in modern English, is cold, unliving, and reserved for objects rather than living people.

>>legodt+UN
Ok, I guess I see where you're coming from, although that sort of usage seems almost too over the top to happen in real life. But as I said in another comment, we're not referring to a specific person in this context, we're talking about an abstract human being. Unless there's a risk of denigrating "users of technology" or something, I don't see an issue.

>>burkam+2S
Yes (again). It is sadly still very prevalent in trans/genderqueer/genderfucked communities, but I don't quite see the connection to this abstract human/spambot the grandparent was offended by/referring to.

>>legodt+uU
Hardly offended, if it's me you mean there. I just think it's not a good habit to get into.