zlacker

There's a book I found very influential, called "Missing Out" by Adam Phillips. Not something I'd recommend for the casual reader as it's psychologically heavy imho.

But it's the best antidote to FOMO, and so it's central theme "In praise of the unlived life" is worth a mention; There's a lot of shit you'll be glad you missed out on, but felt cheated at the time...

That bullet that whizzed past your head... you missed out on.

That plane you missed... that crashed... you missed out on.

That medication they wouldn't give you ... that turned out to have lethal side effect...

These are silly examples compared to the sumptuous theme Phillips develops about how so much of our whole of lives is a set of misplaced expectations and values that are given to us by others but rarely check out in the long term. It's a very affirming to get beyond confirmation/survivor bias and retrospective rose-tinted goggles.

Being "excluded" from a group of people who are the sort who would give their details to BigTech social networks may turn out to be a blessing in ways you can't see yet.

[edit: moved, sorry I replied to wrong comment]

>>nonran+(OP)
More and more people are okay with losing with privacy though, and the more who take that position, the more you lose by not taking it.

>>Levitz+a3
> More and more people are okay with losing with privacy though, and the more who take that position, the more you lose by not taking it.

I'm trying to simply that with an ear for contradiction;

If P; the more group A lose -> if NOT P; the more group NOT A lose. For P -> L = some loss of privacy

(Okay it's late and I'm clutching at it a little, but something doesn't ring true)

It seems like a formulation of "network effect" on the surface. But if P => L it can't be the same L on the right hand side, no? For the group who are the exclusion of A, their L has to be a gain. Or they are not playing the game well/optimally,

>>nonran+c8
it would help for you to define your variables (A, P, L) and notation (=, ->, "lose")

Or, if you could, would you mind rewriting it in english, please?

>>ImPost+mj
Fair enough, you asked, and my attempts to think out loud in logic isn't helping I admit. So the nub is that clearly, to me, when Levitz uses the word "lose" above, s/he cannot be talking about the same "lose" in both parts of the assertion.