[ffuxlpff]

One more reason to resist the fragile lifestyle that requires constant internet access. Even if you don't live in a totalitarian country where shutting down the net would be easy and probable.

Some time ago someone posted in Twitter a letter of Theodore Kaczynski giving life advice, one point being not to use internet for more than one hour a day. Too bad I couldn't find it anymore.

[zzo38computer]

I also think that you should be able to do stuff without requiring internet access, and also should be able to do stuff without requiring electrical power, etc. You should not be overly reliance on technology. They can be useful (in many ways), but should not be mandatory to rely on, and furthermore should avoid damaging the natural environments for such technology, and also avoid damaging the possibility of working without them.

[dijit]

why is this flagged? (maybe Theo? I don’t know this person).

Its absolutely a good argument against fragile IoT devices that have no local/offline mode and the ever increasing lurch of internet requirements for our daily life.

I’m not sure my phone does much of anything without an internet connection. Yet it is my primary banking and authentication method (via BankID).

EDIT: Theodore Kaczynski is the unabomber… well, thats an odd name to drop and maybe not an ideal candidate for life advice.

[IAmGraydon]

It's getting downvoted because (1) this person is suggesting the answer to governments taking away our ability to freely communicate is to stop freely communicating (2) he's giving life advice from a terrorist mass murderer.

Yes, you're not at risk from being cut off from the world if you're not connected to it in the first place. That's not a state most of us want to exist in. Ted Kaczynski lived in a small cabin in the woods away from humanity.

[ffuxlpff]

The solutions requiring constant internet connection are pushed by states and companies because they help cutting costs and gathering information. However, the users are often more vulnerable to the risks if the technology fails but have relatively little say.

The solutions that do much the same but require internet connection only once a day or even once an hour would be much more resilient and safe but currently there are few incentives for providers to develop and offer them.

The extreme situations like war or dictatorship are good awakening calls but it is easy to see there are lots of risks involved even if things would go rather smoothly otherwise.

[blueflow]

> this person is suggesting the answer to governments taking away our ability to freely communicate is to stop freely communicating

You equate comms with internet. Maybe you should talk to people IRL more often.

[IAmGraydon]

No one in their right mind believes that you can accomplish widespread, high speed communication via "talking to people IRL" like you can with the internet. It has become a very important way that we share information broadly, deal with emergencies, and stay informed. Going back to the stone age is not a good option at this point. But you know that, and you're just posting nonsense to have an argument.

[blueflow]

> No one in their right mind believes that you can accomplish widespread, high speed communication via "talking to people IRL" like you can with the internet.

Nobody claimed that. I'm not sure whether this sort of comms is meaningful at all or whether "staying informed" is just the dopamine thing in effect.

> Going back to the stone age

Its actually 20 years ago. That's less than the median age.

[IAmGraydon]

You think the internet started in 2005? Are you sure you belong here?

[noident]

Ted has some interesting ideas but I personally would not accept any life advice from him

[iberator]

Living without the Internet is still doable. Just a little bit harder.

You gonna lose some time and money (buying bus tickets physically and not buying cheap junk over the internet, BUT you're gonna gain like literally 6h per day :)

Been there, done that. Its net positive experience. Just like going back to 1999.

[krior]

You are aware of the fact that a lot of the payment infrastructure relies on the internet today?

[goku12]

We used to carry paper pieces called 'bank notes' or 'bills' and round metal disks called 'coins' in a small leather pouch in our pockets called wallets. They were pretty effective for payments without much of an infrastructure. Even banks worked using paper documents and books.

I know this sounds a bit too condescending. But that's honestly not my intention. I just couldn't help it! Jokes aside, it's true that we often forget that these things can be done and were done without the internet. But more importantly, there are 2 dangerous implications for our over reliance on the internet for our financial activities. The first is that the government or a non-state actor can easily disrupt our commercial and personal activity unintentionally or as a retribution. We have effectively surrendered our financial autonomy to multiple powerful players.

The second major problem is if we ever face a post-apocalyptic situation with regards to modern technology. We already have only a few fabs that can meet the global demand for advanced ICs. We have already seen our vulnerability to one of them when a flood there caused supply chain disruptions and a slump in even automobile markets. HDD and SSD manufacturers have similar weaknesses. Meanwhile, DRAM manufacturers are placing all their (gambling) chips in the AI hyperscaler market, threatening to disrupt every market from smartphones, laptops and consumer appliances to military and commercial jets, ATC, shipping, railway signalling, telecom infrastructure, etc. The technology apocalypse isn't that farfetched and we are extremely vulnerable to it.

[Bender]

Depends where one lives. In my location there is zero dependency on the internet. It's just a convenience thing and the growing number of miscreants on the internet is negating that balance for me personally. Sooner than later I am going back to a landline and ditching the cell phone.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Sure, but it does not mean it is not possible as OP notes.

More to your point though, even if it does, maybe it should not realy on it.