Thread by @EdmundGriffiths

Interesting task by @Zaid_ISN. A few scattered thoughts from me: first of all, useless innovations can be useless in different ways & I'm not sure all the examples Zaid gives are really no use to _anybody_

https://twitter.com/ccsoc/status/1489320374286393344

I hasten to establish that I am also an enemy of the space-age superbins & have been grumbling about them for years (which must mean they are a #serious #annoyance bc as you know grumbling is not my way)

https://twitter.com/edmundgriffiths/status/1013766144828870662

But they're not useless to the council: they contain a solar-powered compactor that squeezes the rubbish down to a fraction of its size, meaning they don't need to be emptied as often & the council gets to cut its wages bill

Even without the compactor, there _is_ an argument for preferring closed bins to open ones: if the rubbish isn't constantly exposed to the air they might be less likely to breed flies, wasps, & other pests (some of the old-style bins do become a bit of a menace by say August)

(Should have said interesting *talk, not task. I don't mean to suggest that listening to it is a chore!)

But that already suggests two ways in which a gadget that initially seems useless might not be. It might be useful to somebody _else_, even if it's useless or irritating to me; or it might be an improvement in _some_ way, even though I myself find it to be worse/the same overall

Zaid's example of the VHS recorders that auto-play when you put a tape in (other left outfits might criticize NFTs or cloud services—the CCS is still angry about the fax machine) prob belong in that category: _some_ people would find it a convenience not to need to push Play

That leaves the more "Innovations Catalogue" kind of breakthroughs, like the smart fork & the smart cat feeding bowl. Those aren't generally imposed by an institution & they generally aren't the only option anybody still makes: they're sold to individuals as discretionary items

And, while many of them probably don't sell in any numbers, I'm sure some of them do. So—what's the attraction?

Here I agree with Zaid's point re _supply_, that the existence of these "useless" items may be a by-product of or a price you need to pay for the existence of technological innovation across the board: some proportion of the new inventions you get will be pointless or frivolous

But I suspect something analogous is true in terms of demand. If people feel they're living at a time of technological advance, then some at least will want to get on board & feel they're part of it—they're early adopters, up to speed with the age of atomic piles & colour talkies

Oh look isn't it amazing, it flashes a light, it has satellite geolocation, it talks to your phone over bluetooth, it uploads data to the cloud, it runs on the blockchain—all those things are fun & engaging (to some people: not to everyone) independently of whether they're needed

And I think that's bc they are of now, they're part of the wave, etc etc, they're on board the steamship of modernity

Anyway, I recommend the talk; those are just some things that occurred to me as I was listening to it

https://twitter.com/ccsoc/status/1489320374286393344