> I’ve had my own website since I was 13. I will not tell you the domain name because it contained some cringe ass shit that’s still visible on archive.org.
So, I am working on an e-book reader myself and I love e-books as well. But the problem with e-books is not that they don't have "smell or feel" but rather DRM issues. Unless you get all your books in a DRM-free e-pub format, they can be taken out of your library at any time for any reason. Also its nice to have something to pass down from generation to generation.
I am personally an avid supporter of both digital and physical books, but to say that physical books are an "inferior" choice is incorrect because people choose those for entirely different reasons than they might choose a digital copy.
Good point. Thing is, most people get their e-books from Amazon which has a history of harsh DRM restrictions and removing them from libraries when licensing issues arise. I fully support DRM-free ebooks. That is part of the reason why I am working on my e-reader...once I am done I plan on writing a book repository software to work with it to make getting e-books easier. However the fact of the matter is that people who buy them DRM-free are a minority. The majority of people prefer the convenience of just downloading from Amazon over grabbing one from a DRM free store and porting it to their e-reader of choice.
My complaints about DRM aside, my biggest problem with OPs article on e-books is thinking that one is "superior" to another, when different people get different formats for different reasons. Some may like the idea of being able to carry tons of books around with them on a tablet, or being able to search text. Others might dislike these features, and prefer physically turning pages. Neither is "better" than the other, and I dislike people that DO think one or the other is inherently superior for whatever reasons.
As someone who has taken a lot of drugs of all sorts, I also find it a bit 'cringe' to post a list of them with no context on your public website. To me, it comes off as a humblebrag for having some specific personal hobby, but without anything interesting to say of it. I view it like posting a list of the different ethnicities of women you've bedded.
But I found the collection of quotes page decidedly more 'cringe.'
He also doesn't conceive that maybe their mind was retracted rather than expanded despite the lack of specifics of "expansion" and adding a belief in own mind expansion being a contraction.
Given that I have not mentioned of my history of drug usage in any form, you and the sibling commenter make a lot of uninformed assumptions.
Since the dawn of time we know the effect of hallucinogens, so only someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, like you, would dispute this fact.
But please do offer your invaluable insight on the matter.
They don't seem to be arguing everyone should necessarily have a website known to be linked to them.
The argument seems to be "leave a record".
And secondarily, "for your descendants" (they write "ancestors", but that's obviously wrong).
You can do the second part without sharing with the world that it was yours. Ensure someone in your family knows, or leave notes in safe locations.
I guess we can infer a third assumption: that there's a reasonably high chance that archive.org will outlive your personal papers or data, making it potentially a valuable alternative to a journal on paper or your own systems. That part is an interesting discussion. I'd worry if everyone opted for relying on archive.org over their own copies, but at the same time, I know how vulnerable personal records can be.
Doesn’t this counter the entire argument?