The museum edition asks for a passcode on any UID given, but no passcodes are provided? Other than that, it's very interesting, as long as you skip a lot of the uninteresting "stats" that LLMs think have to be part of every webpage, and skim the 5 or so pages of chatgpt-written history about it that has very evidently been prompted from information given by the sysop's son, but tries to do a weird third-person gimmick that is very distracting.
I'd honestly just prefer it if you'd written a 2 paragraph history yourself. It comes off as very insincere otherwise.
As a whole, the archive and webpage are very difficult to navigate, too. I've seen a lot of these sorts of live-archival projects over the years, and as best as I can tell, a lot of the context clues that normal archivist projects (or even, you know, humans that design web pages) give you to help prompt you for what to expect are missing. It's also very distracting how the entire thing is written and formatted like a VC sales pitch.
edit: I just attempted another go at the "museum edition" version to see if I had missed something, but pressing "skip" to get past the intro caused the entire thing to seemingly halt completely. Any further input prompted the "if you make a mistake, press pound" sample to play, and then it prompted me for a password. I tried yet again, and it happened again even after a cache-clearing refresh. I tried again, and just waited it out, but pressing the star key caused it to enter the "connection closed" state.
This... As someone who has broadly avoided LLM software, this entire site is one of the buggiest things I've ever used. It needs a third pass just to make it bug-free and intelligible to someone who isn't involved in the project, I think. And maybe throw $20 at a programmer you know to hand code stuff instead.
It deeply, deeply sucks to have to give such a harsh review to the archival effort of what is one of the most unique and interesting BBSes I've ever heard about.
Time in the field would have been spent with family, too. Women used to weave and spin loom for clothing as they walked, and developed tools for it. Families used to include the children in the field work when possible, in rural areas. In addition, families working the fields used to spend less time working than modern adults do, not more[1]
> The ancien règime in France is reported to have guaranteed fifty-two Sundays, ninety rest days, and thirty-eight holidays. In Spain, travelers noted that holidays totaled five months per year.
One of the reasons why children, teens, and young adults have become so infantalised is because they are socialised mostly around each other, and spend a lot of time being told "no you can't, you are a child". This is not a call for children to enter the mines, and I do not wish to see child labour laws repealed (as they are apparently being in some parts of the USA). But for children to be socialised correctly, they must maintain connections with people of all ages, both older and younger — all benefit from such an arrangement. For them to grow up, they must be treated as people, and given age-appropriate responsibility and inclusion in the tasks that adults do. It is harder to teach a teenager to wash the dishes and their clothes, than it is to ask for a child's help washing the dishes and your/their clothes. The children are happy to help and to be included, you get to teach them rudimentary tasks, and it counts as family bonding time. The alienation of children from adults, and the alienation of children from their parents' work, is a great loss to society as a whole.
Time on computer is often spent "with family" too, eg. my son is home from school today and noodling around on my phone next to me while I handle a bunch of errands online.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not here, but sitting next to each other in the same room isn't the same as spending time together.
I can sit with my butt touching someone else's on the subway for an hour, but would hardly call that "spending time together", or presume to know anything about them other than their smell.
It's a response to the GP, which makes the point that time in the field would still be spent with family. Time in the field with family is different from "spending time together" in the same sense that time on the computer adjacent to family is different from "spending time together". In both cases, your attention is on a task rather than on a person, you may be performing different tasks, and you're in close physical proximity but not necessarily doing the same thing.
Also I think many extroverts misunderstand introverts in this respect. My mom (introvert) and me (introvert) would often just read in the same room, and that was enough for us: I assure you, it felt very different than sitting with my butt against a complete stranger on the subway. My younger kids (introvert and ambivert) insist on digging their toes under my back while we sleep to make sure I haven't gone anywhere; they are not even conscious, but the proximity is important to them. This particular kid is an extrovert and has made about a dozen bids for my attention in the time between my previous comment and now (most of which have been reciprocated), but that is again the huge difference between sitting next to a family member and sitting next to a stranger on the subway. With family, that bond of trust is already there, and so you feel okay interrupting the silence to ask what your next move should be in Magic Sort, or why you can't download Township, or how do you turn the phone off silent mode, or showing me how he just beat his personal best score on 1 To 100, while you would never ask those of a stranger on the subway.
> One of the reasons why children, teens, and young adults have become so infantalised is because they are socialised mostly around each other, and spend a lot of time being told "no you can't, you are a child".
I agree,but this has become so normalised that people think that spending time with kids one's own age is then only way to be properly socialised. People say kids who do anything else will be "weird". It is the single commonest objection to home education that children cannot be socialised except by spending the most if their time with their own age group (rather than with adults or kids of a range of ages).
I found my kids loved helping with whatever I did, whether cooking or installing an OS. There is always something they can do: fetch something or pour something or keep an eyebon something. It was more fun for me too.
> In addition, families working the fields used to spend less time working than modern adults do, not more[1]
And they'd spend a lot more time doing all the things we don't need to do anymore. The money I get from work buys a lot of convenient _not_ needing to do a lot of menial labor.
I'd honestly just prefer it if you'd written a 2 paragraph history yourself. It comes off as very insincere otherwise.
As a whole, the archive and webpage are very difficult to navigate, too. I've seen a lot of these sorts of live-archival projects over the years, and as best as I can tell, a lot of the context clues that normal archivist projects (or even, you know, humans that design web pages) give you to help prompt you for what to expect are missing. It's also very distracting how the entire thing is written and formatted like a VC sales pitch.
edit: I just attempted another go at the "museum edition" version to see if I had missed something, but pressing "skip" to get past the intro caused the entire thing to seemingly halt completely. Any further input prompted the "if you make a mistake, press pound" sample to play, and then it prompted me for a password. I tried yet again, and it happened again even after a cache-clearing refresh. I tried again, and just waited it out, but pressing the star key caused it to enter the "connection closed" state.
This... As someone who has broadly avoided LLM software, this entire site is one of the buggiest things I've ever used. It needs a third pass just to make it bug-free and intelligible to someone who isn't involved in the project, I think. And maybe throw $20 at a programmer you know to hand code stuff instead.
It deeply, deeply sucks to have to give such a harsh review to the archival effort of what is one of the most unique and interesting BBSes I've ever heard about.
reply