“Just commenting” and then tearing down anyone who points out holes in your argument is not a conversation; it’s trolling.

“You may flame me now, for I am full of love”

So, I was gonna disagree for various reasons, but this suggests you are posting specifically to incite arguments. Are you? Because that’s not what good faith looks like.

I had this thing in the aughts where I was like you used to fix machines and now its like. awww. whats a matter. do you need a restart?

I just spoke to my coworkers about this yesterday. It is a useful analogy.

Imagine you walk into work one day, and your boss explains that you have a new coworker. His name is Dave. Dave is very eager to do work, but needs constant and unceasing direction. Dave is being hired on contract through a firm, and your boss very excitedly informs you that they only have to pay Dave pennies per hour, which means your boss fired half of your team. When you ask whether the firm will eventually charge more for Dave’s services, you are brushed off and told that you’re “afraid of progress.”

When you log in to start working, you find a new email from IT. They’ve put a lot of new policies into place. Now, in order to send an email with an attachment, your boss has to manually approve it. You may no longer upload files to anywhere on the internet. You used to be able to install software that passed the security checks on your own, now you need to file a ticket for manual review. When you ask your boss about these new policies, he informs you that it’s because Dave had, on several occasions at other companies, sent nonsensical emails to clients. Dave had also deleted one company’s entire customer database; and at another company, he had uploaded a lot of sensitive information to a public server. When Dave was instructed to not send sensitive data outside the company, he apologized profusely and enthusiastically agreed to never do that again. He then proceeded to do it again. Hence, the information lockdown policy. You ask your boss if this won’t negatively affect productivity, but your boss assures you that Dave will more than make up for it.

Dave proves to be sickeningly productive, and never ceases rigidly smiling. He constantly affirms how correct you are on everything. Out of curiosity, you try obliquely contradicting yourself. Then you try convincing Dave that the sky is colored magenta. After some very mild pushback, Dave affirms the validity of your statements. Your boss likes Dave.

You ask him to read and summarize a stack of reports, and Dave returns in about a minute with a succinct writeup. Dave’s writing style is incredibly verbose and he uses certain words and phrases weirdly often, but whatever. Later, you ask Dave to do a search on power suppliers in the area. Dave returns a minute later with a large list of power adapters, their detailed specifications, and where they are manufactured. You clarify your request and send him back. Dave returns, and after one more round of clarification, he manages to get the information you requested. You probably could have done that in less time yourself, but Dave’s a new hire and some learning is to be expected.

But unlike other new hires, Dave doesn’t get any better over time. There are some tasks he can do well and quite quickly, but he clearly doesn’t understand the gist of what you’re actually doing. For every minute of time he saves you, you find you’re spending at least as much time directing him or fixing his work. Once in a while, he’ll spout gibberish for a few minutes, and you’ll have to walk out of the room and back in to restart the conversation from the beginning. And whenever you ask Dave a question, he responds with absolute confidence in his answers (even though you discover that an alarming number of them are completely made up). Unless you contradict him, in which case he will immediately and unquestionably forfeit his previous position to adopt yours. Dave’s firm ensures you that they are continuing to train Dave further. You wonder where the trainer’s paychecks are coming from.

Your workload becomes overwhelming because your boss fired half of your team. Whenever you attempt to bring this up with your boss, you are instructed to make Dave do it. You express concern that there are some things Dave can’t do well despite your best attempts at direction. Your boss looks at you skeptically, then calls Dave into the room and asks him if he can accomplish the task you’re working on. Dave assures your boss that he can do it. You are dismissed from the meeting, and your boss spends some time listening to Dave tell him how great of a boss he is.

Dave doesn’t seem to have much concept of personal space. You are constantly finding that he’s looking over your shoulder at your work. When you address his presence, he makes suggestions about how to improve your work. Sometimes he suggests that you eat an entire jar of mayonaise. When you book a conference room and close the door behind you, you’re suprised to see messages come in from Dave offering further suggestions (plus an apology about the mayonaise, realizing he never considered whether you might have an egg allergy). When you ask IT why Dave seems to have access to your PC at all times, they respond that it’s part of the new policies.

Would you want to work with Dave?

How is that a useful analogy? Its not like a person at all it just wears the mask of one. Its still the same architecture underneath. Still a computer running calculations and not a human thinking.

I’m actively trying to move as far away from the desktop analogy as possible. Backwards.

If people in the 1990’s only knew how much personal and sensitive data those desktop UIs collected unbeknownst to the common end user with the purpose of profiting off of it by selling all that aggregated data to honorable businessmen who in turn would hand it over to totalitarian regimes and other cyber criminals. Oh boi.