Honestly, it confuses me how often I, a traditional Christian, agree with the policy positions of yourself, a liberal leftist. Maybe It's an autistic contrarian thing?
Anyway, this article is no exception to that general rule.
I agree that copyright law should be abolished. And patents. They might have been created with good intentions but in practice are now scams for expropriating wealth from ordinary people to big business.
This is compelling argument; in light of your strong words, I have decided to repudiate my own ideas and substitute your own. From now on, all articles will read as the word "no," on repeat, forever.
As someone who has worked in the field (academic libraries) and is a periodic visitor of many libraries across the U.S. and abroad, I support some of this argument but not all it most of it.
I won’t get into the details, but I will say libraries both public and academic (which are open to the public but monitored and designed differently) are already doing such things as weeding books and eliminating book stacks spaces to create study spaces, prayer/meditation/nursing rooms,and other things like studios to record podcasts or hold group zoom meetings.
There’s a lot of old ass books that <1% of academics use, are outdated and obsolete, or are digitized or available non-physically in some other form.
They are less often burned than donated to nonprofits with names like Better World Books, who do something with them.
It’s hard to monitor misuse of libraries given the librarian ethos respects their patrons’ privacy to a high degree. But monitoring things like drug use and using public access computers to look at porn, among other things, is important. One reason is to ensure the safety and security of patrons who want to read, write, study, research, etc.
But for allowing the unemployed homeless to search for work and find housing, or even read the news, I stand by the library ethos of giving those patrons opportunities and assistance.
There’s a gray area in between that sometimes is hard to hold, at least without turning the librarian/library worker into a security officer.
I’ve never worked somewhere like the L.A. or San Francisco public library, or the Free Library of Philadelphia but I imagine they have much different conversations about how to do this.
I think most libraries are doing mostly okay, and communities are mostly respectful, and the biggest problem is preserving the space while figuring out the right books to weed and withdraw, and on top of that with the sheer number of books being published, which ones to purchase and add to their collections.
College campuses with academic libraries in certain urban areas generally monitor who enters by ID.
converting libraries into prayer/meditation/nursing rooms seems like an incredible waste of taxpayer money, but converting them into homeless shelters and kindergarten play areas might be worse.
The problem with libraries isn't that they are hell-on-earth, but they are trapped capital in a world where we need capital. it's the opportunity cost.
The prayer/nursing/meditation rooms usually take up very small corners, and I think they're worth the cost of what little space they take.
On libraries being hell-on-earth: I find them to be the opposite. I've visited a few in basements in run-down towns either in dilapidated, repurposed basements of buildings once built to be a bank vaults or food storage cellars, where someone smelling like piss sits rambling at a table, but these are few and far... in my experience.
At large the libraries, public and academic, have been housed in beautiful and well-designed buildings, sometimes repurposed and/or refrubished with levels of care and maintenance worth the investments and taxpayer dollars. I've watched nonbinary youth and wisecracking plumbers both use them and check out books at the same desks. They take various donations beyond books and offer night classes in Spanish, embroidery, and 3D print design.
They're community centers running programs for families and for children, with studios for adult learning and plenty of good books and communal tables for laptopping. I sit in one as I write this. I can point you to many. Community colleges and municipal centers. The community benefits outweigh the costs.
"The problem with libraries isn't that they are hell-on-earth" I think you misinterpreted what I said. My problem isn't that libraries are bad, but that they are misused. You aren't quantifying community benefits, you're anecdotally asserting your own personal preference without really accounting for the costs. It's a quantitative question.
The first part where the entire point is getting smart students to innovate better iphones is so retarded that it's not even interesting or funny. But the second part, explaining how retarded the general public is is then very interesting and funny.
It reminds me of this idea I've had bouncing around about why cops should be allowed to beat people up a little bit if they're clearly out of line. While you went the nicer route, to save money and properly take care of idiot vagrants, I think a dual pronged approach where they are also beaten into submission (and in the direction of your newly established poorhouses) would be most effective.
Adding a minor entry barrier would greatly improve libraries, a la the Costco effect or the Aldi shopping cart. It would shift the pressure of book selection to fit a better audience, and make it higher status to visit the library.
Implementing would be very difficult however. I can't imagine people supporting it across the board, unless some small scale examples were proven to work first. Even then it might still be received poorly.
Too many books to burn to make it financially viable to use them as fuel. Better to let them compost in a landfill.
Honestly, it confuses me how often I, a traditional Christian, agree with the policy positions of yourself, a liberal leftist. Maybe It's an autistic contrarian thing?
Anyway, this article is no exception to that general rule.
I agree that copyright law should be abolished. And patents. They might have been created with good intentions but in practice are now scams for expropriating wealth from ordinary people to big business.
You sure you're leftist?
No
This is compelling argument; in light of your strong words, I have decided to repudiate my own ideas and substitute your own. From now on, all articles will read as the word "no," on repeat, forever.
Oh hell yes
As someone who has worked in the field (academic libraries) and is a periodic visitor of many libraries across the U.S. and abroad, I support some of this argument but not all it most of it.
I won’t get into the details, but I will say libraries both public and academic (which are open to the public but monitored and designed differently) are already doing such things as weeding books and eliminating book stacks spaces to create study spaces, prayer/meditation/nursing rooms,and other things like studios to record podcasts or hold group zoom meetings.
There’s a lot of old ass books that <1% of academics use, are outdated and obsolete, or are digitized or available non-physically in some other form.
They are less often burned than donated to nonprofits with names like Better World Books, who do something with them.
It’s hard to monitor misuse of libraries given the librarian ethos respects their patrons’ privacy to a high degree. But monitoring things like drug use and using public access computers to look at porn, among other things, is important. One reason is to ensure the safety and security of patrons who want to read, write, study, research, etc.
But for allowing the unemployed homeless to search for work and find housing, or even read the news, I stand by the library ethos of giving those patrons opportunities and assistance.
There’s a gray area in between that sometimes is hard to hold, at least without turning the librarian/library worker into a security officer.
I’ve never worked somewhere like the L.A. or San Francisco public library, or the Free Library of Philadelphia but I imagine they have much different conversations about how to do this.
I think most libraries are doing mostly okay, and communities are mostly respectful, and the biggest problem is preserving the space while figuring out the right books to weed and withdraw, and on top of that with the sheer number of books being published, which ones to purchase and add to their collections.
College campuses with academic libraries in certain urban areas generally monitor who enters by ID.
converting libraries into prayer/meditation/nursing rooms seems like an incredible waste of taxpayer money, but converting them into homeless shelters and kindergarten play areas might be worse.
The problem with libraries isn't that they are hell-on-earth, but they are trapped capital in a world where we need capital. it's the opportunity cost.
The prayer/nursing/meditation rooms usually take up very small corners, and I think they're worth the cost of what little space they take.
On libraries being hell-on-earth: I find them to be the opposite. I've visited a few in basements in run-down towns either in dilapidated, repurposed basements of buildings once built to be a bank vaults or food storage cellars, where someone smelling like piss sits rambling at a table, but these are few and far... in my experience.
At large the libraries, public and academic, have been housed in beautiful and well-designed buildings, sometimes repurposed and/or refrubished with levels of care and maintenance worth the investments and taxpayer dollars. I've watched nonbinary youth and wisecracking plumbers both use them and check out books at the same desks. They take various donations beyond books and offer night classes in Spanish, embroidery, and 3D print design.
They're community centers running programs for families and for children, with studios for adult learning and plenty of good books and communal tables for laptopping. I sit in one as I write this. I can point you to many. Community colleges and municipal centers. The community benefits outweigh the costs.
"The problem with libraries isn't that they are hell-on-earth" I think you misinterpreted what I said. My problem isn't that libraries are bad, but that they are misused. You aren't quantifying community benefits, you're anecdotally asserting your own personal preference without really accounting for the costs. It's a quantitative question.
my biggest fault is I'm a "quality" guy
profile picture is improved
The first part where the entire point is getting smart students to innovate better iphones is so retarded that it's not even interesting or funny. But the second part, explaining how retarded the general public is is then very interesting and funny.
It reminds me of this idea I've had bouncing around about why cops should be allowed to beat people up a little bit if they're clearly out of line. While you went the nicer route, to save money and properly take care of idiot vagrants, I think a dual pronged approach where they are also beaten into submission (and in the direction of your newly established poorhouses) would be most effective.
iphone is an example -- you think smart students don't benefit from tutors?
Grade; A
You should write for the Onion.
Reply for annotated grade.
Finally a good deep left analysis article
Interesting. What inspired you to write this?
I support this wholeheartedly. I wonder if it can be applied on a city level initially.
Adding a minor entry barrier would greatly improve libraries, a la the Costco effect or the Aldi shopping cart. It would shift the pressure of book selection to fit a better audience, and make it higher status to visit the library.
Implementing would be very difficult however. I can't imagine people supporting it across the board, unless some small scale examples were proven to work first. Even then it might still be received poorly.
Too many books to burn to make it financially viable to use them as fuel. Better to let them compost in a landfill.
Another policy that would be a thousand times more likely to happen under Trump and dumb MAGA peasants than otherwise.
I award points for actuals not theoreticals