The realization that you achieved as much as one could hope to achieve and you still didn't find contentment.
That's honestly, to me, the saddest thing about the mega-rich. They don't know when, or how, to stop. There's no goal state where they can say "ok I made it, I can turn it off and enjoy life now, or at least stop fighting tooth and nail to hoard even more bigger numbers."
Point is that competition is fueled by insecurity. If you are happy, truly content, with yourself you will find competing extraordinarily tiresome and unnecessary. Not saying it’s good for society by the way. I think our civilization needs the pathologically insecure to be disruptive and create room for innovation. Related traits are narcissism and psychopathy. Painful, but useful, in small doses.
Musk, Altman, Bezos they are basically caricatures.
Well to first describe the specific types of copouts, so many amazing story missions eventually boil down to "kill everyone who is in the way of pulling the switch that achieves our goal". Or "here is a complex social build up describing conflicting morales, with multiple possible solutions socially/mechanically... kill the person you disagree with."
What if instead the majority of the gameplay was unique game mechanics that actually achieve the goal. Instead of "oh no it's full of monsters who are in the way of the buttons", why not having to scavenge the parts, solve some mechanical and electrical puzzles. Maybe find a person and get the right dialogue options to get information you need out of them, that actually applies to the puzzles, etc... this is all in existing games already of course, but hopefully that illustrates what I am getting at.
Cyberpunk 2077 had this issue in spades, as all the storylines were so interesting, and could have had such interesting game mechanics tied to them. But it was mostly combat.
I am not saying that makes it a bad game, just that there is so much room for other mechanics.
Well that is interesting, but I was referring to the wording of the phrase "chasm of possibilities." A chasm is not something I would metaphorically associate with "great potential." A chasm is usually a bad thing, its a hole, a gap, you fall in and the only possibilities are that you are heroically saved, or you die.
The Chasm of Possibilities sounds like a comedic juxtaposition, like something from The Phantom Tollbooth or Hitchhiker's Guide.
Oh! Yes a chasm in the sense that, all possibilities have vanished into it, rather than being implemented.
That is funny though, English is my first language and I am reasonably well read, but for whatever reason, common turns of phrase are entirely missing, so I fill in the blanks, and don't always hit the mark.
This jives with my general reaction to the post, which was that the added complexity and difficulty of reasoning about the ranges actually made me feel less confident in the result of their example calculation. I liked the $50 result, you can tack on a plus or minus range but generally feel like you're about breakeven. On the other hand, "95% sure the real balance will fall into the -$60 to +$220 range" feels like it's creating a false sense of having more concrete information when you've really just added compounding uncertainties at every step (if we don't know that each one is definitely 95%, or the true min/max, we're just adding more guesses to be potentially wrong about). That's why I don't like the Drake equation, every step is just compounding wild-ass guesses, is it really producing a useful number?
It is producing a useful number. As more truly independent terms are added, error grows with the square root while the point estimation grows linearly. In the aggregate, the error makes up less of the point estimation.
This is the reason Fermi estimation works. You can test people on it, and almost universally they get more accurate with this method.
If you got less certain of the result in the example, that's probably a good thing. People are default overconfident with their estimated error bars.
Read a bit on Fermi estimation, I'm not quite sure exactly what the "method" is in contrast to a less accurate method, it's basically just getting people to think in terms of dimensional analysis? This passage from the Wikipedia is interesting:
By contrast, precise calculations can be extremely complex but with the expectation that the answer they produce is correct. The far larger number of factors and operations involved can obscure a very significant error, either in mathematical process or in the assumptions the equation is based on, but the result may still be assumed to be right because it has been derived from a precise formula that is expected to yield good results.
So the strength of it is in keeping it simple and not trying to get too fancy, with the understanding that it's just a ballpark/sanity check. I still feel like the Drake equation in particular has too many terms for which we don't have enough sample data to produce a reasonable guess. But I think this is generally understood and it's seen as more of a thought experiment.
They are meaning the same thing. The original comment pointed out that people’s qualitative description and mental model of the 95% interval means they are overconfident… they think 95 means ‘pretty sure I’m right’ rather than ‘it would be surprising to be wrong’
I think the point is to create uncertainty, though, or to at least capture it. You mention tacking a plus/minus range to $50, but my suspicion is that people's expected plus/minus would be narrower than the actual - I think the primary value of the example is that it makes it clear there's a very real possibility of the outcome being negative, which I don't think most people would acknowledge when they got the initial positive result. The increased uncertainty and the decreased confidence in the result is a feature, not a bug.
All they're really observing is that there are no such things as "strengths" and "weaknesses"
I don't think that's totally accurate, the article is very clear about the "duality" and "two sides of the same coin" concept. "No such things" dilutes it to something that may be a law of nature but that also approaches a tautology.
I agree with some of the comments picking the original post apart a bit, that the reality is more nuanced. "Coding speed" and "occasionally overlooking details" don't seem so cut-and-dried to me as two sides of a duality. Coding speed is the sum of a number of factors, one of which can definitely be just straight up being able to reason about things and get to a solution faster. Occasionally overlooking details is a symptom of rushing, which does relate to coding speed, but to me does not serve as a great example of the "strength = weakness" duality.
I also don't know if major evolutionary shifts over millenia are a totally apt metaphor for iterated situations involving the same individual human psyche. I feel like you zoomed out and generalized a bit much, which made it less controversial.
I've often felt that coding is more akin to writing than anything. Any given statement is perhaps mathematical but at the higher level you're more authoring a program according to humanistic needs and thought patterns rather than strictly "engineering" it.
Using a tool to beat match has always been considered "cheating", but it is obvious why it is a tool.
I guess in the same way that using a higher-level language than Assembly is "cheating." I'm not sure if you're referring specifically to the Sync feature (which is still largely frowned upon) or more generally analyzed beatgrids, BPM readouts and Master Tempo (which keeps the pitch in tune when you change the tempo), but the vast majority of practicing DJs today are not needing/using the old school vinyl beatmatching techniques.
Call it whatever you want but you're going to be incredibly hard-pressed to find anyone that can mix as smoothly on vinyl as someone decent with CDJs. Sure it's a cool dying art and analog and all that but at this point virtually anyone trying to play vinyl out is sacrificing the listener's experience for cool points (including the physical issues with reproducing sound from delicate machinery in a chaotic environment).
> Call it whatever you want but you're going to be incredibly hard-pressed to find anyone that can mix as smoothly on vinyl as someone decent with CDJs. Sure it's a cool dying art and analog and all that but at this point virtually anyone trying to play vinyl out is sacrificing the listening experience for cool points
That's a sad commentary on today's DJs then. Yes, there were some very bad vinyl DJs that loved the shoes in the dryer mixes and could not advance past that. They love the "beatmatch" magic. Doesn't mean that those that could are less of a DJ which is what you're trying to say?
My perfect setup would be vinyl controllers of a digital player which is very much a thing. Of course, hearing a DJ mix vinyl that is older with all of the snap crackle pops of a burning log is not pleasant, but that does not diminish the vinyl as a controller being superior to a tiny plastic spin wheel on a digital controller.
Not really, you just have a lot more information and tools at your disposal. It's going to be a better performance. In no other area of endeavor is anyone expected to limit themselves to decades-old technology, that would just be madness.
but that does not diminish the vinyl as a controller being superior to a tiny plastic spin wheel on a digital controller.
How is it superior? We've just covered so many ways it's inferior. I have a number of friends that are really into vinyl, I've never really "gotten" it, there's no argument other than this kind of nostalgic fetish (which I'm not saying is for nothing, but I usually just want to use whatever technology I can to create the best experience for the listener).
If you've never used vinyl enough to "get it", then how can you say that it's inferior. The tactile experience of controlling the sound with the vinyl is so different than some digital plastic feeling controller. Yes, the higher end CDJs have a better feel to them decades later, but it is still not the same.
At this point we might as well be arguing about tab vs spaces. Using vinyl is my thing, and it is just not going to be possible to explain why I like it so much without the both of us being at the gear. Words do not convey the same as the touch
> but that does not diminish the vinyl as a controller being superior to a tiny plastic spin wheel on a digital controller.
It's absolutely objective, but the feel of vinyl on a slipmat is absolutely so much nicer than a jog wheel.
But many ppl barely even use jog wheels these days. Just nudging to get in time.
When you spend countless hours getting the right light touch on a vinyl that Tactile feel is absolutely lacking when it comes to more digital interfaces.
I'm not arguing vinyl records sound better. GP and me are arguing that it feels better.
Yeah that's fair, you guys are talking about the experience of the DJ. I'm talking about the experience of the listener. In the chaotic environment of a club or festival, there are too many ways that playing vinyl on turntables can be a source of moderate to severe sound quality degradation, often through no major fault of anyone involved.
As far as the DJ goes, in terms of "normal" gigs (that aren't in the by now incredibly niche turntablism world), where your primary goal is to entertain some people with good music mixed well, you're going to be able to do anything you can do on turntables on CDJs, and a lot more, and more reliably. Just in terms of the practical aspects and realities of putting on a good show in 2025, turntables are completely outclassed, and you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage by trying to make them work. But a certain set of people will give you respect.
How does discussing the gear used by a dj get twisted into the perspective of the listener?
I also love how standing there in the Jesus pose or chicken heading with a raised fist is entertaining for the crowd. If you need the DJ to be a conductor to show you the drop, then you’re not a good music listener.
Sure, a vinyl DJ isn’t going to be jumping up and down next to the decks (unless the tables have been suspended from the ceiling), but watching a turtabilist run multiple decks while swapping dub plates will always be much more impressive and entertaining to me than someone tapping out a beat on a 12”x12” box with buttons.
Only a very small subsection of the crowd will care about how the DJing is getting done. What actually matters is music selection, mixing style, energy building etc. 99% of people don't give a shit about vinyl mastery.
I agree that the beat sync tools feel like cheating for the old school DJs, but the newer generation are using it to get more creative.
Without spending half the time beat matching, they now have time to interact with the tracks more - play with stems, loops, filters, fx, scratching etc.
>but the newer generation are using it to get more creative.
Without spending half the time beat matching, they now have time to interact with the tracks more - play with stems, loops, filters, fx, scratching etc.
>It’s becoming more of a live performance
while this is true in theory, i find that sometimes the new tools end up becoming a crutch making djs extremely boring
the extra time freed up from not having to concentrate on beatmatching etc. is replaced with nothing
a lot of the time i have no idea what people are even doing they may as well just be playing a playlist from spotify
whereas i can generally discern what a vinyl dj is doing, and watching someone like jeff mills dig through piles of records & spinning 3 decks while being on the edge of trainwrecking has a kind of energy and tension that gets lost and is not replicable with newer technology
it's sorta like someone being able to sing really well naturally vs someone with autotune
that being said i've still seen amazing sets from digital djs or people with interesting live setups
One of the commonly extolled virtues of playing vinyl is that you're "just playing records." As in, not using any fancy effects and tricks. For a lot of people, this is enough, and it's mostly about your music collection and song selection. If you're really good at vinyl, you're not doing much most of the time either and you can dance around and dig through records. Nothing about this needs to change when switching to CDJs.
People get hung up on all this stuff that has very little to do with what matters most at the end of the day, which is the sound coming out of the speakers, and the experience of the audience (which I will grant that the visual aspect of watching the performer is a part of). Deadmau5 talks about stuff like this...basically everyone at a major festival is playing a prerecorded set so that visuals and lights and the rest of the show can be synced up. It doesn't matter what tools you use or how much work you're doing as long as people are entertained. It's about putting on the best show you can.
Jeff Mills is a God-like legend, of course your average local DJ isn't going to compare. It is a bit like being a real estate agent in that the barrier to entry is super low now but you still have to be skilled in some way or another to be really successful.
edit: Also, I take offense to the insinuation that "old skool" DJs are not using new things to be more "creative". Old skool DJs are not old dawgs that can't learn new tricks.
> sacrificing the listener's experience for cool points (including the physical issues with reproducing sound from delicate machinery in a chaotic environment).
I was with you right up until this point.
People care about the music, not about how tight the beats line up. I’ve heard some amazing DJs who were actually shit at beat matching but had unparalleled track selection.
I’ve also heard some technically amazing DJs who were incredibly dull to listen to because their songs and set progression just went nowhere.
I’ve also had far more technical problems, both as a DJ myself and as a clubber, with modern controllers than with vinyl. The fact is there’s less to actually go wrong with vinyl. And I say this as someone who never had any love for Technics 1210s as vinyl turntables.
To give an example of “less to go wrong”, I was at one gig and the turntable stopped working. We opened it up, replaced an internal fuse and it started working again. The whole thing took literally 10 minutes to fix. If a CDJ died like that you’d be looking at replacing it with a whole new unit.
At the end of the day, I never really cared how the music was performed just as long as the music was good. Because of that, I was one of the early adopters of Ableton. But these days I have a family so just DJ vinyl at the occasional house party.
I'll give you that I was being overly harsh or generalizing too broadly, perhaps with the hope that someone would challenge that.
The points you make about DJs are valid but irrelevant to the hardware. If "all else is equal," the newer tech just has the benefit of decades of engineering and feedback loops and is purpose-built for that exact application.
It's not going to be beat by 1970s tech, your once-in-a-blue-moon anecdote is outweighed by countless frustrations with turntables[1], and you won't find anyone in the industry that thinks it's going to work easier/better to set up turntables than CDJs. Supporting vinyl is a huge hassle and it's generally only done for special events or artists (or vinyl-specific bars that have gone to great lengths and leave their setup intact).
[1] Not to mention that yes, having a replacement on hand (or already hooked up) is the pro move to solve that problem quickly. As badass as it is, I don't think it's all that desirable for a DJ to be opening up hardware mid-gig.
It’s only a huge hassle now because most DJs don’t spin vinyl so a special effort has to be made for them.
Modern turntables aren’t 1970s tech any more than CDJs are 1980s tech because it has a CPU in it. For starters DJ turntables are direct drive whereas the stuff from the 70s (and, to be fair, most home record players too) are belt drive.
The reason vinyl turntables fail less is because there’s less stuff in them to fail.
That’s doesn’t mean that vinyl turntables are better. Like with a lot of modern conveniences, we gladly enjoy the benefits of the extra tech knowing that it makes those devices harder to repair. But when you say that CDJs are more reliable, I have to call that out as incorrect. It’s just reliability here isn’t the primary concern because CDJ reliability is still very good.
It’s also worth noting that DJs don’t really use CDJs any more either. These days turntables take USB pen drives rather than CDs. I forget the model name for the Pioneers off hand though.
> As badass as it is, I don't think it's all that desirable for a DJ to be opening up hardware mid-gig.
This was a squat party, so very different circumstance to your typical club. But you’d be surprised at just how crappy a lot of club gear can be. I’ve played at places that didn’t even have a working DJ mixer. And this was an iconic London venue too
It’s only a huge hassle now because most DJs don’t spin vinyl so a special effort has to be made for them.
If you're standing in front of an empty table before a show at an actual venue with money and stakes on the line, and the hypothetical is posed, "which is more likely to produce a smooth listening experience for our guests tonight?" the answer is always CDJs. The vibrations, the stabilization required, the needle quality, people bumping the table, the wear and tear of records that have been played and lugged around...vs a digital stream that has none of those issues. The only real issue is complete malfunction of the player and you can gig for years without experiencing that. Other than that, you throw it on the table, plug it in, and It Just Works. Your sound guy isn't going to be on edge the entire night just praying that some weird turntable shit doesn't go down and make god awful noises on very loud speakers.
The current top of the line is the CDJ-3000. The is the absolute standard that you will find in bars and clubs (or one of the CDJ-2000 models if they haven't upgraded yet) and on virtually every pro DJ's rider. It doesn't play CDs anymore but it's still called that. They have a line called XDJ that is cheaper (XDJ also refers to a line of all-in-one units that are increasingly popular these days but the gold standard is still the individual CDJ player).
I’ve seen more CDJs fail than I’ve seen sets end because someone has bumped the table while a record was spinning. And as a DJ, you don’t want the main club speakers behind you because that just makes it harder to queue up tracks, so the vibrations issue would be as a result of bad design that shouldn’t exist even in digital only clubs.
You can claim that CDJs are more reliable all you want but I call FUD on your claims of vinyl. Both as a DJ, event organiser and paying punter.
Also your claim about a completely device failure isnt the only failure mode for a CDJ. I’ve seen CDJs fail because the platter has lost its touch sensitivity. I’ve seen their buttons fail. I’ve even seen them overheat in some warehouse parties with inadequate ventilation.
But let me reiterate this: if you’re equipping a venue and you pick vinyl or CDs (or anything for that matter) because of reliability concerns then you are automatically making the wrong choice.
Their reason you shouldn’t pick vinyl has nothing to do with the risk of someone bumping the table. The reason you shouldn’t pick vinyl is simply because that’s not what most DJs will want these days.
You pick the medium based on the performers requirements not some hypothetical disaster scenario. This isn’t software engineering, it’s music performance.
You can claim that CDJs are more reliable all you want but I call FUD on your claims of vinyl. Both as a DJ, event organiser and paying punter.
Ok, that's fair, it's not that crazy or anything. But it is more difficult to get right.
Buttons fail and things do go wrong with CDJs but most of the time it's an inconvenience for the DJ that can be worked around and doesn't intrinsically affect the sound. We have CDJs in use 3-4 times a week taking god knows what abuse and have them serviced sometimes for small stuff but they pretty much work without issue.
if you’re equipping a venue and you pick vinyl or CDs...
That's why I said it was a hypothetical. You're not always making that choice on a given night, I wasn't talking about purchasing decisions, just what is generally going to be a safer choice from a technical perspective. It's also not a hypothetical disaster scenario, you can't act like these issues don't exist with delicate mechanical sound reproduction. It's just kinda comical, particularly on a big stage surrounded by so much digital tech, it's like why even risk it? And yes that question goes to the performer.
Because all new tech is better for the sake of being new? Your sleight of 1970s tech is weird as it’s really more of that tech was just so good it doesn’t have room for improvement. The classic build a better mouse trap conundrum.
For example, the butterfly keyboard was not a better improvement.
I just threw down a two-hour vinyl mix of drum-and-bass at my local vinyl night (no trainwrecks, thankfully), and amongst the folks of this particular artist collective are several who would meet that description. And we are one of many in a tier-2 metro.
Ok, my bad. I just didn't feel like it meaningfully countered anything I've argued. It is true that there is a culture of vinyl DJs and nights out there, and I'm not really commenting on their relative skill level. I have no doubt they have a higher degree of passion than the set of all people who ever touched a controller or represented DJing poorly. I'm just saying that for most intents and purposes the CDJ is a considerably larger and more reliable superset of the capabilities of a turntable and it amplifies anyone's abilities and is relied upon as the industry standard for a reason.
CDJ became standard for multiple reasons having nothing to do with your arguments. The media is much lighter and compact. I could walk in with a booklet of CDs and play a longer set than having to lug in multiple 50lb crates. CDs are not susceptible to cue burns or other wear and tear. CDJs don’t have to worry about stylus wear and tear. Fewer labels were pressing vinyl too.
Original CDJs did not have auto beat matching as they were just dumb turntables albeit with a janky plastic fisher price feeling jogwheel. It wasn’t until much later the auto syncing was available, and then the CDJ just became controllers.
The CDJ or other digital controllers did not become standard because they were the superior tactile controller.
You seem really intent on not listening to what I'm saying. What do you think my arguments are? I have mentioned the wear and tear of records, lugging them around, and the physical state of the mechanical hardware of the player. This is a core part of my argument because these things can affect the audio quality.
I never said a damn thing about tactility. You did. This is the absolute least important factor in the quality of the performance and any DJ worth their weight can perform just fine on jogwheels. If you are a DJ in 2025 asking people to set up turntables for you solely because of superior tactility, despite their numerous drawbacks and potential hazards, you are a primadonna. Which, if you're popular enough, you can get away with, because "all vinyl" is marketable to some. If you're playing at home or gigging in a bar with your own gear or your buddy's and there's no stakes, do whatever you like, obviously.
I will also say that I don't hate vinyl records or people that like to DJ with them, I get why it's cool, I think it has a place. What I do take issue with is any kind of vinyl elitism or snobbism, because it's just so backwards at the professional level. I can't think of an analogue to another area of endeavor where there is this culture or sense of disdain for using the current tools and technology to do your job better. It's nonsense gatekeeping.
People that use hand tools to make things don't have this attitude that it's "better" than using power tools, it's just a different way that they enjoy.
Please carefully read everything I've posted in this thread. I'm speaking from a position of wanting to provide the best experience to the customer and the fan of dance music events.
we've so lost the plot on this thread about my original comments. i said that vinyl is the better input control than a jog wheel. i'm not talking about using vinyl as the medium for playing back the sound. i'm talking about using vinyl as the control surface using Serato timecoded vinyl so that you can use the vinyl as the control surface which then controls whatever digital file system you want. you can still use that to beat match, loop, effects, whatever. but it will still be a 12" piece of physical vinyl that can be used to control things.
there is no elitism or snobbism about vinyl regarding music. it is solely about being a much better input mechanism.
Vinyl elitism is a bit of a problem but amongst the DJ community it is increasingly seen as old-man-yells-at-the-cloud. For most everything else CDJs are the superior choice; vinyl is a pain in the ass when I could just walk in with a USB drive and slot in. Plus it is a lot easier for producers to demo new tracks and test out WIPs with USB.
That said if you're good at it vinyl is still a lot of fun! And people respect it in a way that digital DJs may never experience. There is something to be said for doing some actual disc jockeying... the 'real DJ' cred is pretty great and a good way to differentiate oneself.
Why would people who are so comfortable, whose job was to me a lifelong goal, want to do exactly what I worked so hard to move away from?
The difference is doing it out of necessity vs. doing it out of choice. Nobody fetishizes being worked to the bone in fear of making ends meet. Tech people are by and large well-educated and comfortable enough to dream of a utopia where they can be close to nature and do tasks that feel meaningful and human in an of themselves (vs. hyper-abstracted acronym-laden functional teams value-adds that often only provide the indirect satisfaction of "I'm doing my job and my boss is happy"). "I made a chair" and "I grew some carrots" are instantly relatable and valuable to anyone.
Source: I quit my tech job and moved to the woods 8 years ago, but would only do so because I don't need to worry about grinding a survival out of it.
At the end of the day, it's tough to live in a place like SF or NYC. A lot of people get weeded out. In my experience with living in SF, the people I know who continue to live there do so because they genuinely love it and wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
Most people aren't going to continue to put up with the costs and challenges of big city life if they actually don't care all that much and could be just as happy in whatever places you're suggesting.
As someone who has not read a book in years and often jokes that they may never will again, I think the most valuable thing about capital-R reading is improving and expanding your vocabulary. Rereading sentences, stopping to look up words, etc. Knowing the right words to express yourself and communicate with others as accurately and precisely as possible is powerful, and I don't think consuming video affords nearly as much development of those skills (audio maybe a bit more, and video games potentially count as they can in theory contain a similar level of reading as a book).
I think the indie web hasn't taken off because it's...indie...and it's competing with businesses that spend lots of money on growth. This will always be the case. You have to jump into the melee if you want the eyeballs, or just be content on a free island. Personally I find plenty of actual human beings publishing on popular platforms.
I remember the Internet before Google, Facebook, YouTube, Myspace, etc. The whole thing was what is now being referred to as 'the indieweb' and it was the best incarnation of the Internet.
Consolidating most of the web into giant content silos is one of the worst things to happen to it
> Consolidating most of the web into giant content silos is one of the worst things to happen to it
I'm not sure that "giant content silos," alone, is the harm.
But as soon as you start adding "algorithmic feeds," and "supported by advertising," then all the dark "engagement hacks" start showing up, and it turns toxic in a heartbeat.
To use a specific example, I don't think LiveJournal, despite being a "giant content silo" back in the early 2000s, was particularly harmful. It was a chronological feed, with pagination - you had to decide, at the bottom of the page, to click next. You didn't have "endless scrolling." And because it was purely chronological, if you refreshed, and there was no new content, well, go do something else. Nobody has posted anything new. If it got too much to manage, there was the ever-popular "LJ Friends Cut" - trimming who you follow to people you actually get value out of.
It was a useful ecosystem, but didn't have any of the nasty dark corners of our modern content silos. But it was also not ad-funded - it was funded by premium memberships, and IIRC some merchandise sales, and in general, "funded by the people who got value out of it," so the goals of those funding it were generally aligned with the goals of those running and using it.
DreamWidth, today, is a fork of LJ that seems to be doing just fine with the same approach LJ had. It is a "moderate sized content silo," at least, and it doesn't have any of the dark patterns of modern ad-based platforms that I've seen.
Yes, and back then the way to go was to have a personal website with links to all your friends and some other cool sites around the web. If you wanted more discoverability, you'd join a webring (or try your shot at getting listed in a directory).
I'm still a fan of webrings, hosting a personal website is now easier and cheaper than ever, but it's not the norm anymore. Back then it was, as you had nowhere else to go, more people were browsing the directories, weblinks, links on personal pages, than now.
Well, that also democratized publishing. For better or worse. Anyone can have a voice now that can spread without needing access from (human) gatekeepers or mastering arcane incantations. Starting from when there were like 4 TV channels, I think this has generally been a good and lauded direction.
One of the things I noticed is the behavior of bloggers nowadays are different from the past. The "blogosphere" used to be ripe with links to other blogs they found interesting, which facilitated discoverability so much!
reply