I believe they do. When people talk in person, there is a lot of non verbal communication that give context to their words (smiles, shrugs, side glances, etc). Even when it's just people talking over the phone, the way they pronounce words carries information (it's a lot easier to tell if someone is being sarcastic if you hear their voice, for example). So, emojis are useful for providing that missing context.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, but it's exactly this.
Pre-emojis, there were so many times I misinterpreted a text, or had a text misinterpreted. Something that is obviously a joke or sarcasm or teasing with non-verbal communication, can come across as an insult without it. When somebody adds a wink emoji or similar at the end, it changes everything.
Emoji are fantastic at communicating tone and attitude alongside the text itself. They're not a 1-1 correspondence with non-verbal communication, or a perfect replacement, but they vastly improve the chances that something playful isn't misunderstood in a negative way.
That's a great point, but I am skeptical that emojis adequately carry the affect of nonverbal communication. I believe you make a case for sending audio/video messages alongside the text.
I think some emoji have directly and already entered the colloquial lexicon of being essentially emotional content punctuation marks and modifiers. It's still a different communication channel than facial, body language, and tonal modifiers of physical presence and verbal communications, but it still feels like the gap is closing.
There are also ways that emoji used as such are better, or at least more accessible, than their facial/body language counterparts: a screen reader can read the name of an emoji to a blind person to get a sense of it whereas facial recognition software that can verbalize such things still isn't always so accurate; that same tool of glancing at an emoji name is also open to neuro-divergent and other differently abled people that may have difficulty interpreting facial expressions and body language in real time.
The same way. For me the proper use of emojis is in reactions, to cut down on brief responses that cause clutter and undesirable notifications. I am less welcoming of them in the middle of a message, where they don't serve that purpose.
> you're identifying specifically with violent raiders who killed peaceful monks
That's not that surprising; figures like Caesar and Genghis Khan are still being worshiped today. Hell, most famous European monarchs are famous because of their violence. It's a lot easier to forgive murder when it happened centuries ago.
I've heard that the reason why marijuana is so strong is because it was illegal. The sellers wanted to have stronger weed to make it easier to transport; much like how during prohibition, people would prefer to import distilled alcohol, instead of beer.
I'm curious, do you also think alcohol and tobacco should be banned? I definitely believe that marijuana use can lead to negative consequences, but I still think it is less dangerous than either of those 2 substances.
They will say yes, but you will never see most of them defending that in any news about alcohol or tobacco. For some, it's just a way to ignore the hypocrisy corner.
> Dutch cops say they told him to stop and delete the material, but he allegedly refused, saying he would only do so if he "received something in return."
Assuming the cops aren't making this up, the arrest actually seems pretty reasonable.
Laws generally say that state secrets are illegal to possess unless authorized regardless how you got them. You should notify and delete them if you get them by mistake
So him not deleting them when asked was a bold move.
> and each hour yields more learning due to neuroplasticity
I don't think that's true. As an extreme example, it takes a newborn a couple of years before they can start speaking a language; an adult can learn a few basic phrases in an hour or so.
> Most people are too appearance and fashion-conscious to want to wear tech on their face
Have you seen the Ray Ban meta glasses? They already look pretty close to existing fashionable sunglasses, albeit with a visible camera.
> and I don't see many people wanting to carry TWO expensive tech gadgets (and worry about charging/losing/forgetting them)
They already do; plenty of people carry a smart phone, a smart watch, and airpods.
> seeing as photos and video is core to what people want from their mobile device, it seems that the smartphone will continue to be the form-factor of the future, and I expect these other next-gen form factors to fail.
People use smartphones to avoid being bored, but there are situations when it's unacceptable to use them (i.e. in a meeting); I could see smart glasses being used for that niche.
> What if Google or someone else comes out with an AI-centric "personal assistant" device so compelling that it massively ups the bar as to what customers expect from a mobile device (in same way that iPhone did at launch)?
Knowing Google, that personal assistant would probably be shut down within a year.
Eh, even those polytheistic societies had their own inquisitions. Socrates was executed for defying the gods, and lots of Christians and Jews were persecuted because they refused to accept that the emperor was a god.
reply