Hitting the Facebook "Snooze" Button

Yeah, Sturgeon's Law says 90 percent crap. Actually, Sturgeon square law applies to get you to 99 percent.

Seems to me 90 percent squared would be 81 percent. But I'm used to old math.

Yup, you gotta square the non-crap part ...

Sturgeon law = 1 - non-crap, = .9

Sturgeon square law = 1 - non-crap² = .99

or something like that...

By comparison, other people have 90% of the crap I don't want, therefore it must be crap. LOL.

I made a new name for Facebook, and I will give you three guesses. It ain't "Faceplant", although that might work.

Face-insert bodily function here, is a waste of time, energy, money, and lives.

I totally checked out of that loony bin about a year ago, and before that, let me tell you, I was not racking up frequent flyer miles on there.

Oops. This was meant as a reply to the Sturgeon's law comment.

I'm glad this was brought up. I hope no one minds if I use this opportunity to compare the differences of objective/subjective, nothing/crap, and relativity/quantum. Then I want to connect some of those dots/data to make a dot-to-dot picture. I'm starting from the opinion that the very statement, "90% of stuff is crap.", begs several questions: Who determines what's crap/valuable? Is the lack of something (nothingness) considered crap? What is the other 10%? What makes one crap, and the other valuable? If "Truth" is absolute, why are there any questions at all? If science is purely objective (without wishful thinking), then why is there such a divide (inability to unite) between classic/relative science and quantum/digital science?

If we can take the collective answers to these questions to a "big picture" solution, then maybe we'll better understand/appreciate that "one man's trash is another man's treasure" and that relativity/relationships are more important/valuable than the unassembled components/quanta that comprise the whole. Instead of, 1(value unit)+1(value unit)=2(value units), how about 1(value unit)+1(value unit)=morethan2(value units), just as an assembled car is more valuable than a basket case. In this regard, the definition/equals-sign is not just a translator, but a significant variable itself (subject to subjective opinions, and where magic/confusion occurs). Please allow me to support this opinion/theory/speculation a little here.

Everybody knows about friction. And, if friction is not reduced/eliminated between moving parts (such as gears, shafts/bearings, etc.), then they won't last (work) very long. So, oil/lubrication is used. But in an atom, there is no actual contact between the moving parts (electrons and nucleus). Is this space/nothingness considered to be crap? I submit that quantum physics insists that nothingness can't exist. It keeps trying to fill the voids between the very quanta it insists everything is made of. It's as tho they have an inability to conceptualize that a real infinity can exist within a larger infinity. Without contact between the moving parts, the introduction of oil/lubricant will actually create a contact between those parts, and increase friction. That would be like using sand instead of oil in your engine (or a signal jammer between transmitter and receiver). I submit that insisting on proving that "nature/science abhors a vacuum", is actually interfering with the relationship/relativity between those non-contacting moving parts. In that regard, I submit that that crap/nothingness referred to as 90% of stuff, is actually required to maintain the universe as we know it. To drive my point home: The relationship/relativity between the nucleus and electrons must be maintained without significant/any change to enable the existence of a universe that's as old as claimed to be, and predicted in the future. Science must be able to explain not only "what is", but also the relationships/relativity between the components. And, contrary to quantum physics, "nothingness' must also be part of "what is". Therefore, the philosophical question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?", assumes that there is no "nothing" there. A better question would be, "Would the existence of 'nothing' be required to have 'something'?".

I log in once or twice a year. And when I do, your postulation is violently affirmed.

This is exactly the binary thinking of quantum physics that I can't accept. Instead of "all or nothing", there should be a way to get the good stuff and filter out the bad. Or as they say in the song The Game Of Love, "A little bit of this, and a little bit of that. It's all in the game of love.". A binary choice between one extreme or another never has good results. There needs to be different degrees in between. Binary might make choosing easier/faster, but neither choice would good. For example: Would you rather be a total slave to money, or a free man with no hopes of making progress? Well, if you don't like what's going on in technology, don't participate in it. Or, if you don't like what's going on in life, don't participate in it.

From reading the article, I believe the "snooze" applies only to the one person, not everybody. (Maybe it should be called "stifle").

<...Find that you need a break from the nonsense that is Facebook?...> Total avoidance is the best therapy. It is not called "YouTwitFace" for nothing, after all.

And that deserves a GA!