It's 25 Years Later. Are We All Now Trapped in 'The Matrix'? (msn.com) 181
It was March 24, 1999 that The Matrix premiered, premembers the Wall Street Journal. "To rewatch The Matrix is to be reminded of how primitive our technology was just 25 years ago. We see computers with bulky screens, cellphones with keypads and a once-ubiquitous feature of our society known as 'pay phones,' central to the plot of the film."
But the article's headline warns that "25 Years Later, We're All Trapped in 'The Matrix'". [I]n a strange way, the film has become more relevant today than it was in 1999. With the rise of the smartphone and social media, genuine human interaction has dropped precipitously. Today many people, like Cypher, would rather spend their time in the imaginary realms offered by technology than engage in a genuine relationship with other human beings.
In the film, one of the representatives of the AI, the villainous Agent Smith, played by Hugo Weaving, tells Morpheus that the false reality of the Matrix is set in 1999 because that year was "the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization." Indeed, not long after "The Matrix" premiered, humanity hooked itself up to a matrix of its own. There is no denying that our lives have become better in many ways thanks to the internet and smartphones. But the epidemic of loneliness and depression that has swept society reveals that many of us are now walled off from one another in vats of our own making...
For today's dwellers in the digital cave, the path back into the light doesn't involve taking a pill, as in "The Matrix," or being rescued by a philosopher. We ourselves have the power to resist the extremes of the digital world, even as we remain linked to it. You can find hints of an unplugged "Zion" in the Sabbath tables of observant Jews, where electronic devices are forbidden, and in university seminars where laptops are banned so that students can engage with a text and each other.
Twenty-five years ago, "The Matrix" offered us a modern twist on Plato's cave. Today we are once again asking what it will take to find our way out of the lonely darkness, into the brilliance of other human souls in the real world.
But the article's headline warns that "25 Years Later, We're All Trapped in 'The Matrix'". [I]n a strange way, the film has become more relevant today than it was in 1999. With the rise of the smartphone and social media, genuine human interaction has dropped precipitously. Today many people, like Cypher, would rather spend their time in the imaginary realms offered by technology than engage in a genuine relationship with other human beings.
In the film, one of the representatives of the AI, the villainous Agent Smith, played by Hugo Weaving, tells Morpheus that the false reality of the Matrix is set in 1999 because that year was "the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization." Indeed, not long after "The Matrix" premiered, humanity hooked itself up to a matrix of its own. There is no denying that our lives have become better in many ways thanks to the internet and smartphones. But the epidemic of loneliness and depression that has swept society reveals that many of us are now walled off from one another in vats of our own making...
For today's dwellers in the digital cave, the path back into the light doesn't involve taking a pill, as in "The Matrix," or being rescued by a philosopher. We ourselves have the power to resist the extremes of the digital world, even as we remain linked to it. You can find hints of an unplugged "Zion" in the Sabbath tables of observant Jews, where electronic devices are forbidden, and in university seminars where laptops are banned so that students can engage with a text and each other.
Twenty-five years ago, "The Matrix" offered us a modern twist on Plato's cave. Today we are once again asking what it will take to find our way out of the lonely darkness, into the brilliance of other human souls in the real world.
No. No we aren't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
NSF Grant IRI-96-31952 Data Warehousing and Decision Support
Project Impact
The 1998 Report mentioned several achievements of the PI and students supported by previous NSF grants.
Duration: 9/1/96--8/31/1999
Title: Data Warehousing and Decision Support
Last year, we mentioned two startups that developed from research under this and predecesor grants, Junglee Corp., bought by Amazon.com in 1998, applied information-integration technology to the Web. Google is a search engine company whose growth has brought it to the first rank, and that is growing faster than any of its competitors. Its core technology, which allows it to find pages far more accurately than other search engines, was partially supported by this grant.
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Real life versions of the Architect and Agent Smiths.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, and my forefathers were likely Hessians that were fighting for the British. So I clearly have a thing for letting Britain rule America again.
Why don't you gin up some conspiracy theories about pink unicorns. I think you'll find those highly satisfying.
Re: No. No we aren't. (Score:4, Insightful)
The conspiratardism is strong in these ones...
Out of curiosity, has it never occurred to you guys that the largest corporations the world has ever seen existed at around the time this country was founded? You guys talk about Google like it's this big unstoppable force of a juggernaut that the founding fathers couldn't forsee ever happening when they created the framework of democracy and liberty that we now enjoy.
If only you had any fucking idea what corporations looked like during their time. Try a corporation so large that it had a monopoly on trade of AN ENTIRE FUCKING HEMISPHERE.
But now we're in some kind of unprecedented time where the CIA conspires to found Google to spy on people with phones (I'm still not sure where crapple fits in all this) so that the US government could dominate the world...or something...because the same entity that couldn't even see 9/11 coming or sort out whether there were WMDs in Iraq had enough foresight to predict that cell phones would replace newspapers over an even longer timespan.
Oh silly me, I forgot, 9/11 was an inside job and the world is flat but the government is covering it up because...uh...it might hurt if you fall off...
Re: No. No we aren't. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf are you talking about? VOC, the first publicly traded company, lasted from about 1600 to about 1800. It had no "twilight" clause. They were every bit as "immortal" then as they are now. Part of the reason they failed was because of very poor mismanagement, not because they just got up and said "ok, we're done now".
Few people really think about why the Americas were settled to begin with. Basically Constantinople was conquered in the name of "Islam", putting a definitive end to the Roman Empire, and for
Re:No. No we aren't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bread = Consumerism, houses, cars, fad gadgets, fashions, etc..
Circuses = The entertainment industries, which include the news & social media, as well as the Hollywood film & TV industry that collaborates with the Pentagon to maintain support for consumerism & perpetual war
Perpetual war = Yemen (2023 - ongoing), Libya (2015 - 2019), Syria (2014 - ongoing), Iraq (2014 - 2021), Niger (2013 - ongoing), etc..
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, I sure do feel dumb for having spent the last 21 years thinking the Bushies started it in 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No. No we aren't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget the domestic war between the cops and citizens. With military level budgets and equipment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And let's not forget those citizens trying to outsmart the police and commit crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not so hard to out smart police. There is a good reason.
https://www.police1.com/police... [police1.com]
Re: No. No we aren't. (Score:2)
That's interesting, because I do neither. So obviously there's more than two choices here. Maybe that's your explanation for why you've been to jail so many times, but Occam wants a word:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lb... [youtube.com]
Contrary to your lived experience, most of us have never been to jail even once, let alone going through your revolving door. Oregon tried it your way by decriminalizing just about everything. How did that turn out?
Re: No. No we aren't. (Score:2)
Where is this coming from? Sure, no one likes getting traffic tickets, but the police have always been there the few times I've needed them. WTF are into if you ate butting up against police with APCs? The drug cartels, certain cult movements, and terrorists cells are the ones who get to see the military equipment side of the police.
Re: No. No we aren't. (Score:3)
They'll get involved whenever drinkypoo feels like swatting somebody, because according to him, when it comes to the choice of whether you swat somebody or not comes down to deciding whether you're a rebel or a slave.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood film & TV industry that collaborates with the Pentagon to maintain support for consumerism & perpetual war
It might be time for you to stop watching Fox News. Hollywood and TV has as much to do with the US war machine as Obama did with the Iraq war.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually true, but I can't imagine that topic ever coming up on Fox News. Check out https://www.defense.gov/News/I... [defense.gov] or read the Wikipedia article, Military-Entertainment Complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perpetual war = Yemen (2023 - ongoing), Libya (2015 - 2019), Syria (2014 - ongoing), Iraq (2014 - 2021), Niger (2013 - ongoing), etc..
I would label Libya as 2011-2020, though I'm not sure during how much of that period (and before) the US has been involved. The US and NATO bombed Libya in 2011, destroying the central government. Prior to that, Libya's UN Human Development Index (HDI) was on a clear upward trajectory. Since 2011, the HDI has been bouncing around but generally declining [undp.org].
The US has also been involved in war in Yemen since 2015, at least in the sense of supporting Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. The point about "perpetua
Re: No. No we aren't. (Score:2)
Re: No. No we aren't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Regarding Washington's track record on disappearance, torture, & murder programmes, you might want to find out more about Operation Condor & The School of the Americas. Let's not forget the US' torture camps in occupied Iraq & Afghanistan either, as well as an extensive network of "black sites" run on the behalf of Washington by 3rd party countries, e.g. Uzbekistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mass Shootings are worse in other countries. (Score:2)
Fun fact: USA has fewer deaths from mass shootings that many other countries.
Some data here [crimeresearch.org] and here [ssrn.com].
If you fear dying in a mass shooting (apart from this being such a low cause of death that it vanishes from most tables), then America should be near the top of your short list of desirable places to live.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's true. Though that ambiguity and difficulty of measurement sure doesn't stop people from creating the false impression that America is the world leader in mass shootings, and that it is a dangerous place to live because of this.
Inasmuch as we can gather meaningful data at all, America is one of the safest countries and mass shootings are quite a rare thing per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to this [worldpopul...review.com] data, Brazil is the world leader in gun deaths, not the USA. USA is second place.
According to this [wikipedia.org] data, the United states ranks 55th in deaths by homicide, regardless of the means used.
So that suggests that even though guns are commonly used as the means, overall USA has quite a low homicide rate compared to 54 other countries.
I will also point out that I found these stats with a near-effortless search on DuckDuckGo. You could have done the same before making your incorrect statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's because of complicit politicians.
It's because in a democracy you need to keep the stakes high enough for political leaders to behave themselves. Given that Americans are unlikely to overthrow a corrupt government, and now that the courts are in on the game there will be no convictions for the powerful and corrupt. Democracies paradoxically need a constant threat of revolution in order to remain stable and peaceful.
Meanwhile (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, most of the world's population still struggles every day to scrounge enough biomass to feed themselves on a daily basis. Those people are very well anchored in reality, because they can't afford the luxury to cyber-whatever.
Re: Meanwhile (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. I imagine daily waking up wondering where your next meal is coming from and afflicted with diseases that wont go away rather puts the "he said hurty words to me on instabook" whining into perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean but as someone with several chronic ailments I'm gonna go "huh" to the second part of how bad "those people" have it.
Sure as fuck didn't protect me from social media induced madness toward the end of covid and I talked to someone two weeks ago who claimed to have no indoor plumbing and no way to have a compost. On social media... sooo...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sticks and stones may break bones but words can start a war.
I'll bet you consider yourself a free speech advocate, and it never ceases to amaze me how much supposed advocates of free speech spend so much time downplaying the power and importance of speech.
Would you say Patrick Henry said "hurty words" when he ended his famous speech with "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Guns and bombs tend to start wars actually.
Well akshually no they don't. A random gunman and terrorist doesn't start a war. Concerted action does and for that you need to convince a bunch of people to act together.
And I've no fucking idea who pateick whatever is (someone famous in the US?)
Do you generally brag about your own ignorance? Are you proud of it?
But whatever you're just another boring anti free speech advocate.
Re: Meanwhile (Score:2)
Ah ok, so now its people discussing military action that start wars, goalpost moving, much?
As for ignorance, why would I know or care about your history? You arrogant yanks think everything revolves around you. I could name you a dozen people well known in my country who you've never heard of so dont be a dick all your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Yank? I was using an American example because I assumed from your mode of speech and general attitude that you were some sort of Trumpanzee MAGA hat.
Seems I have done our American friends a disservice.
Re: Meanwhile (Score:2)
Oh, and as for anti free speech, quite the opposite but thanks for proving you cant discerned the meaning from basic english.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope you're anti free speech.
You think you are pro free speech bit you are not. Instead you like to play down the importance of speech by using childish phrasing. If speech is inconsequential, it doesn't need strong protections. People who actually care about free speech like me understand that speech is about the most powerful thing there is, which is why we fight to defend it. Those who try to undermine it from within like you do more damage than those who are open about their desire for censorship.
With f
Re: (Score:2)
These days almost all famines are man-made. We have enough food to go around, if people aren't getting it then it's because of affordability, war, or because someone wants them to starve. Often a combination of two or more.
Not 1999 (Score:2, Interesting)
Matrix is set in 1999 because that year was "the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization."
Says who? The movie didn't specify the year and the tech inside the matrix was somewhere between 1989 and 1994, not 1999. It was already dated when the movie was released, and intentionally so.
How do I know it was before 1995? There was no Internet inside the matrix.
Re: (Score:3)
The Matrix runs on Windows XP [youtube.com]
Re: Not 1999 (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm, I was playing about on the internet - MUDs, IRC, gopher, ftp - back in 1991 so you might want to revisit your reasoning.
Re:Not 1999 (Score:5, Informative)
Says who?
Morpheus. It's literally in the script: "You believe it's the year 1999 when in fact, it's closer to 2199."
How do I know it was before 1995? There was no Internet inside the matrix.
There was no Nokia 8110 slide phone before 1996. So your "tech" angle is just completely wrong. The lack of internet is only in your memory. Literally in the second scene Neo is asleep while his computer is downloading things remotely just before Trinity makes contact. Mind you of course the tech was "dated". Nothing is cutting edge in the movie. It's mostly offices so when you see cubicles and CRT monitors, they were very much reminiscent of 1999, as were slide out mobile phones.
But I don't blame you for not remembering it. This movie was literally a quarter of a century ago (now excuse me while I go reflect on the fact that I'm getting old).
Re: (Score:2)
There was no internet, and yet both Trinity and Neo were hackers in their Matrix identities.
Which one is it?
Re: Not 1999 (Score:2)
The internet existed before 1995.
Re:Not 1999 (Score:4, Insightful)
How do I know it was before 1995? There was no Internet inside the matrix.
Bulls***. Trinity used ssh and nmap... kinda hard to do if there's no Internet. SSH was released 1995. nmap is from september 1997.
Re: (Score:3)
> Nevertheless, the technology was wrong for 1999. The tech inside the Matrix was deliberately retro, even for its release date.
Hardly retro, most of the tech depicted would have only been a few years old.
I was happily using a 486 in 1997! Win 3.1 was still found all over the place leaving win 95 as the new thing you saw at school. Dos was all around, heck I still see that today.
I installed win 95 around 1997 when I upgraded the 486 to a 333MHz K6/2. Win98/Me a few years later. I spent most of the ea
That was a good film (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad they resisted the urge to make any sequels.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you like French cinema? There's an up and coming Italian actress who has been cast in a couple of Vince Cassel movies - Monica Bellucci.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there were no sequels to the Matrix as far as I (choose to) remember.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: That was a good film (Score:2)
Blasphemy to ignore the last crusade, arguably a better movie than raiders. Odd though they billed it as "3" without releasing a second. Also comforting in this day and age they didn't pump the cash cow with some years later nostalgia fests that would probably tie in a mish mash of popular topics like aliens or time travel.
Re: (Score:2)
There were two Indian Jones movies. The one in 1981, and the one in 1989.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was hoping they would make sequels with titles like The Vector, The Determinant, The Jacobian, and The Gaussian Elimination.
Re: (Score:2)
Matrix revolutions was actually about coordinate transformation about the origin.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The best thing about "Resurrections" was the trailer that announced it - that was seriously awesome.
The creators obviously had some interesting ideas for the movie... but I thought the execution was only so-so.
I'll take science, but there are many worlds. (Score:2)
I'll take Science but there are many worlds. (Score:2)
Confusing AFK for IRL again (Score:3)
With the rise of the smartphone and social media, genuine human interaction has dropped precipitously.
Because the people we stay in contact with through our phones are just simulacra and not Microsoft-certified genuine humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them probably are simulacra. Microsoft doesn't have a certification program yet, but they can verify their humanity with a bluecheck from Elon.
Imaginary Realms (Score:4, Informative)
" With the rise of the smartphone and social media, genuine human interaction has dropped precipitously. Today many people, like Cypher, would rather spend their time in the imaginary realms offered by technology than engage in a genuine relationship with other human beings."
I didn't want to engage in genuine relationships before social media either... People sucked then as much as they do now. Just now it's more in your face...
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't want to engage in genuine relationships before social media either... People sucked then as much as they do now. Just now it's more in your face...
Sucking is only one of the potential benefits of genuine relationships.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, tou'che
Re: Imaginary Realms (Score:2)
People actually suck less than they appear in social media. Even people on the other end of the political spectrum are generally nice, caring people. The media likes to portray the world as black and white, and most people live in the gray.
Re: (Score:2)
They're the ones who eventually cave in to the Prozac ads and then blow their brains out when they realise anti depressants can't fill the void left by the absence of companionship.
Contrary to what you may be hearing, not everyone who is alone is lonely. They're just tired of dealing with human bullshit spewing its crap day in and day out. They're the same ones who couldn't care less about Twit Tok or Metagram or whatever else "social" media people think exist. It's the same crap, different format.
Re: (Score:2)
They're the ones who eventually cave in to the Prozac ads and then blow their brains out when they realise anti depressants can't fill the void left by the absence of companionship.
Contrary to what you may be hearing, not everyone who is alone is lonely. They're just tired of dealing with human bullshit spewing its crap day in and day out. They're the same ones who couldn't care less about Twit Tok or Metagram or whatever else "social" media people think exist. It's the same crap, different format.
Life experience. Personal preferences. People who do not require other people for validation or even interaction will never be able to convince those who need constant companionship.
The dig is that while you might understand the levels of interaction that exist, they cannot in any way shape or form understand that others are not thinking the way they do.
Whereas you can spend all day without talking to another human, they are on the edge of panicking if they are put in that situation.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, there are more options than the two extremes you describe.
And while I am by no means socially dependent (I spend a week or two a year solo camping in the wilderness because silence and solitude are comforting to me) I am by no means under the delusion that I can dispense with the need for companionship altogether. I am yet to meet a single person who has been able to happily get along in the long term with solitude as the norm in their life. I'm aware that this may be the limit to my experience, but I would also point to the vast research into human psychology and behaviour that confirms the proposition that the human species is social in nature.
Highlighting anecdotes and exceptions does nothing to challenge my general point.
Ah, you pull out the anecdote card. Okay - I am probably starting to annoy you. The anecdote card is used along with the Correlation does not equal causation card as a immediate dismissal of the person you are discussing something with. I shall leave you alone now, have a good day, sir. And may you have the levle of happiness in interactions that suffices your needs.
Re: Imaginary Realms (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, not everyone. Every rule has exceptions. Weird old hermits who live alone and like it are a thing.
You kind of tip off your outlook with the "weird old hermits" comment. Consider that not everyone who prefers to be alone is a weirdo.
But I don't think it would be reasonably challengable to say that generally, humans without contact are miserable.
But when people say outright that those who function without interaction are weird, it shows a truly based example of ignorance. You might not be able to function outside of a constant stream of human interaction and support and validation, but sorry, not everyone who is not like you is weird.
What is more, there are careers and paths in life that require people who are not dependent upon others to function.
Point is, people who really need that personal interaction have tremendous difficulty understanding those who don't, or can take it or leave it.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably never occurred to you that the reason these people are "miserable" is because their quiet, peaceful life is interrupted by others asking them why they don't go to parties or go out drinking, aren't attached to someone, or why they "hate" people.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard people triumphantly declare that they "don't like people".
They're the ones who eventually cave in to the Prozac ads and then blow their brains out when they realise anti depressants can't fill the void left by the absence of companionship.
You might scoff, but let's talk in a decade.
You have a point to a certain degree. So much depends on their lives. The normal human experience is one of social interaction, but there are levels, from the histrionics that cannot be alone, and constantly seek interaction, to the schizoids who are either overt or covert. The schizoid end of that spectrum isn't even an actual condition, as their outlook does not cause them mental anguish. The closest thing to mental anguish is understanding that they are different. Indeed, the only times Schizoids engage
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, there are exceptions. Weird old hermits have always been around.
But almost every study into the matter firmly concludes that humans are social animals, and depriving us of social outlets does, in the vast majority of cases, result in chronic and untreatable misery.
I've always wondered if there is a certain amount of confirmation bias going on there. Studies on interpersonal relationships between people tend to be performed by people who believe that interpersonal relationships are critical. I'm not going so far as even promoting it as a hypothesis, but that might make an interesting study in itself.
The question is, is there some sort of flaw in the people who are the exceptions? Are they all weird old hermits?
Am I weird and flawed in that in either I can inter
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's possible, but then you could make that claim of ANY common hypothesis. "It's possible that the reason that study after study confirms the conclusion that the
Re: (Score:2)
If you're lonely when you're alone, you're in bad company.
Wanna stop grazing your digital navel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what I do: twice a week, I go out to donate my time at a school for the blind (I repair tandem bicycles for the kids to enjoy a bike ride with their seeing captains) and I donate my time at the local Red Cross store to tidy up the shelves and sometimes man the till.
If you do that, you'll meet interesting people totally outside your own educational and income-level bubble and you'll feel more alive and more in tune with your fellow man in twice two-hours per week that you ever will "socializing" on Facebook or Reddit or whatever. It won't cost you a dime and you'll be part of a real community.
Re: Wanna stop grazing your digital navel? (Score:2)
This.
Human contact, especially when varied, is crucial to living a fulfilling life.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Human contact, especially when varied, is crucial to living a fulfilling life.
For people who cannot have a fulfilling life without it.
It will be a part of fulfillment to understand that there is a spectrum of needs. For myself, I interact with hundreds to thousands of people, to the point where I need to get away from them. It isn't misanthropy, it's just that being around that many people has a signal to noise ratio where the noise takes over. So once a week, I get out to the wilderness areas where there are no bars on the phone, and enjoy the aloneness. Introverts need it to as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am an introvert but I can fake being an extrovert. I actually spent time in software sales which is just talking to clients and presentations and contract negotiations but when on my own I am happiest reading some articles on the net about topics that interest me. Give me a quiet room and some intellectually stimulating material to read which has nothing to do with my day job.
No doubt that time is spent "recharging the batteries" as so many introverts note. Not only needed, but allows for introspection.
I too need to do something like recharge, although for a different mechanism of lowering the "noise level" that I get when dealing with a lot of people. I like to have a fully charged mental battery at the beginning of the workweek.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I do: twice a week, I go out to donate my time at a school for the blind (I repair tandem bicycles for the kids to enjoy a bike ride with their seeing captains)
I had to go back and read that again. I just skimmed over it at first and thought "Mean bastard is fixing bikes for blind people? No wonder they always needed repairs!" Then I saw tandem, and thought that's a pretty nice thing to do.
and I donate my time at the local Red Cross store to tidy up the shelves and sometimes man the till.
If you do that, you'll meet interesting people totally outside your own educational and income-level bubble and you'll feel more alive and more in tune with your fellow man in twice two-hours per week that you ever will "socializing" on Facebook or Reddit or whatever. It won't cost you a dime and you'll be part of a real community.
Indeed! Much of the nastiness you see on social media (Slashdot included) is related to anonymity, and often people that need to get out and around other humans.
Re: (Score:2)
100%. Church used to fulfill these functions, but there are tons of secular charity and community-service type organizations as well.
If it sounds boring, just compare it to spending another hour on Slashdot. It's not any worse. That hour on Slashdot will actually be a lot nicer if you delay it until after you've been out doing something else.
1997 was Peak-analog (Score:2)
MATRIX was, at-once, confusing as hell
now we live in it
anywhere there’s electricity – there’s matrix
tech (Score:3)
computers with bulky screens, cellphones with keypads and a once-ubiquitous feature of our society known as 'pay phones,' central to the plot of the film.
The plot would be exactly the same with touch phones and LCD/LED computer screens. Pay phones? Yeah, those are gone, today they could have used something slightly different, maybe a cellular antenna without altering the plot.
Are you truly free? (Score:4, Interesting)
I find the second movie to be even more interesting than the first as it asks an even more important question: Are you truly free?
The first one was about the simulation keeping people in a perpetual slumber, with only a rare few trying to wake up. The second one is about those who wake up and try to rebel discovering that rebelling is PART of the simulation. You're there fighting your jailer in this little arena he setup for you to safely blow off steam while you pat yourself on the back for being such a good rebel.
The parallels with our world's activist crowd is staggering.
How primitive our technology was just 25 years ? (Score:3)
The Matrix isn't set in our world of twenty five years ago but in a computer simulation created at the end of the twenty first century. There's a plate on the Nebuchadnezzar that says it was built in 2069.
The screens, cellphones and keypads were part of the visual style of the movie inspired by the Cyberpunk genre. There are flatscreens all over the place, except in Neo's place of employment, Metacortex. There's also a Radiola Television that puts in an appearance when Morpheus meets Neo in the Construct. Even the Eames Lounge Chairs were out of time. It's called retro-futurism.
Maybe so...and? (Score:3)
Having the Matrix itself emulating 1999 was brilliant, because it means that the film never ages. Sure, the computers and phones look old-fashioned - because that's what the Matrix is emulating. The film could have been made yesterday; they just might have some difficulty coming up with all the props.
Are we in a matrix? Many people are certainly more dependent on being online now. It's a step into the unknown, as social interactions move increasingly into the virtual world. It may not be many more years before AR glasses give us the next step: no need to grab your phone, because the virtual world will always be in front of you. Follow that with increasing interactions with AI instead of fellow humans. It will be a fascinating journey, with plenty of bumps along the way, as always.
To toss some cold water on that vision: We first have to avoid WWIII. The conflicts in the world are flaming up again, and that can all too easily go very, very wrong...
The profound lesson of “The Matrix” :) (Score:2)
ubiquitous payphones? (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
The Matrix did something inherently useful, it self-perpetuated.
The system we're trapped in is destroying its ability to function by using natural capital faster than it can be replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an indicator. It could be cyclic: As soon as humanity has killed itself off enough, there could be a reset (remember we all get a partial reset when we come into this world and another one around 4-5 years of age, the "Infantile Amnesia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]) and then things could either expand again or restart at whatever the simulation operators want it to be.
What the "we are living in a simulation" idea really fails is plausibility. Yes, it could be true, but it is bizarre on the lev
Re: (Score:2)
Thinly camouflaged, the "World as Simulation" is actually theist, because there is a need for some "simulation operator" which is a sort-of absent or non-communicating God, buts still a God.
This of course is nonsense, although it sounds good up front. But it's not a God, but instead simply another comprehensible being in a higher position. This doesn't conflict with anything we know of the universe, which is why it's more plausible than actual religion.
Re: (Score:2)
You overlook that not all theist religions have all-powerful gods. As to "comprehensible", no. Complexity can already kill that easily. And no, it is in no way more plausible that other religions. That is just an empty claim you are making. In fact, it is more bizarre, because it requires the idea of a simulation, which did not exist for most of human history. The first mention in literature is, AFKAI, the 1964 novel Simulacron-3 by Daniel F. Galouye (quite readable, I recommend it). That is _very_ later fo
Re: (Score:2)
Complexity can be illusory. That the idea didn't exist for most of human history is irrelevant. What would be religious would be believing that it is true without some kind of meaningful evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit headline is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
First, there is plenty of non-digital access to the world and everybody uses it all the time. Second, The Matrix, is a classical "exceptional but immature warrior of good that needs to find his path against the forces of evil" story, with a bit of philosophy (pretty mangled though) placed on top, not an "everyday person struggles with life" kind of story.
Obviously, the "we are living in a simulation" people are just another moronic cult, this one still in search of their God (obviously the simulation operator).
Re: (Score:2)
The Matrix was inspired by the experiences of the two trans women who made it. As Morpheus describes it:
What you know you canâ(TM)t explain, but you feel it. Youâ(TM)ve felt it your entire life - that thereâ(TM)s something wrong with the world. You donâ(TM)t know what it is, but itâ(TM)s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what Iâ(TM)m talking about?
That's how they felt before coming out, but it turns
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they also ripped off "Simulacron 3" and several other stories build on it. And quite a few more things. The personal experience of the Wachowskis is just one part of it. And your citation does not even really support that their trans wishes were an important factor. This is usually more described as a disconnect and as wanting to be accepted, not as "something wrong with the world".
It's been 25 years. (Score:4)
Can we stop asking if we're trapped in anything remotely like The Matrix?
It was a fun little mind exercise 25 years ago. Now it's trite.
But, then again, this is a Wall Street Journal article. Trite is probably the best/least-offensive thing they can accomplish.
More relevant now? (Score:2)
"In a strange way, the film has become more relevant today than it was in 1999."
Starting out with a lie. The film was fiction, it was a story. It was NOT relevant to the society of 1999. And it is no more relevant today.