kottke-org-oi76by.txt (30081B)
1 [1]go to homepage [2] KOTTKE DOT ORG 2 go to homepage 3 [3]go to homepage 4 go to homepage 5 [4]go to homepage 6 go to homepage 7 [5]go to homepage [6] KOTTKE DOT ORG 8 [7][ ] 9 MENU 10 [8] 11 Member Login 12 13 • [9]Home 14 • [10]Membership 15 • [11]Newsletter 16 • [12]Goods 17 • [13]Archive + Tags 18 • [14]About/Contact 19 20 [15] dark mode light mode 21 [16] ads via Carbon [17] A fully-managed, unified generative AI platform with 22 access to 200+ foundation models [18]ads via Carbon 23 ads via Carbon 24 Advertise here with [19]Carbon Ads 25 26 Socials & More 27 28 • [20]Newsletter 29 • [21]RSS Feed 30 • [22]Bluesky 31 • [23]Mastodon 32 33 This site is made possible by [24]member support. 💞 34 35 Big thanks to [25]Arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech 36 support. 37 38 When you buy through links on kottke.org, I may earn an affiliate commission. 39 Thanks for supporting the site! 40 41 kottke.org. home of fine hypertext products since 1998. 42 43 Beloved by 86.47% of the web. 44 45 [26]🍔 [27]💀 [28]📸 [29]😭 [30]🕳️ [31]🤠 [32]🎬 [33]🥔 46 47 × close 48 posted 26d ago by [34]Jason Kottke · gift link 49 50 I’ve felt this for years (blogs have global context): “[35]The uni-context is a 51 scenario in which the ways you should act become the same across all different 52 contexts. There’s just one set of norms you should follow all times, 53 irrespective of context.” 54 55 [36] 56 [thumb-4947] 57 [37] 58 A Philosopher’s One-Word Theory to Explain Why the World Feels So Weird · 59 derekthompson.org 60 Once you learn what the "uni-context" is, you won't stop seeing it everywhere 61 [38] Fave · 7 62 [39][ ] Share 63 [40]Open post [41]Copy link [42]Translate 64 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 65 [43]Bluesky [44]Mastodon [45]Reddit [46]Threads 66 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 67 [47]Email [48]Text/SMS [49]WhatsApp 68 69 Comments 5 70 [50]thread [51]latest [52]popular 71 72 Sort by: thread — [53]thread . [54]latest . [55]faves 73 74 R 75 Rex Sorgatz 26d ago [56]Edited 76 77 Many years ago, in the early days of YouTube, I created a web show that 78 involved three young women in NYC sitting around a table and talking about 79 their week — working, dating, partying, struggling, thriving. I cut it into 80 5-minute clips and released it as a daily series. It did really well, and I 81 like to think, presaged several formats that would later appear when social 82 media arrived. 83 84 One day, Metafilter found it. They tore apart the girls for their attitudes, 85 their vocal fry, their style, their posture — everything. I remember staring at 86 the screen and thinking, "You know, this wasn't made FOR YOU, right?" 87 88 That feeling is now alien. Everything is FOR YOU. 89 90 I still think about this massive unnoticed change all the time. For those of us 91 old enough to remember pre-internet (or even pre-social internet), there was a 92 time that you recognized something was "for you" and "not for you." The 93 internet flattened everything, made every event something YOU should form an 94 opinion about. 95 96 The uni-context is now reality. There is no context outside the uni-context. 97 98 Many years ago, in the early days of YouTube, I created a web show that 99 involved three young women in NYC sitting around a table and talking about 100 their week — working, dating, partying, struggling, thriving. I cut it into 101 5-minute clips and released it as a daily series. It did really well, and I 102 like to think, presaged several formats that would later appear when social 103 media arrived. 104 105 One day, Metafilter found it. They tore apart the girls for their attitudes, 106 their vocal fry, their style, their posture — everything. I remember staring at 107 the screen and thinking, "You know, this wasn't made FOR YOU, right?" 108 109 That feeling is now alien. Everything is FOR YOU. 110 111 I still think about this massive unnoticed change all the time. For those of us 112 old enough to remember pre-internet (or even pre-social internet), there was a 113 time that you recognized something was "for you" and "not for you." The 114 internet flattened everything, made every event something YOU should form an 115 opinion about. 116 117 The uni-context is now reality. There is no context outside the uni-context. 118 119 Original comment 120 121 Many years ago, in the early days of YouTube, I created a web show that 122 involved three young women in NYC sitting around a table and talking about 123 their week — working, dating, partying, struggling, thriving. I cut it into 124 5-minute clips and released it as a daily series. It did really well, and I 125 like to think, presaged several formats that would later appear when social 126 media arrived. 127 128 One day, Metafilter found it. They tore apart the girls for their attitudes, 129 their vocal fry, their style, their posture — everything. I remember staring at 130 the screen and thinking, "You know, this wasn't made FOR YOU, right?" 131 132 I still think about this massive unnoticed change all the time. For those of us 133 old enough to remember pre-internet, there was a time that you recognized 134 something was "for you" and "not for you." The internet flattened everything, 135 made every event something YOU should form an opinion about. 136 137 The uni-context is now reality. There is no context outside the uni-context. 138 139 [57]Fave · 11 [58]Reply [59]Share 140 J 141 Jeremiads 23d ago 142 143 Very compelling. Could have mind-blowing implications. I like that Callard 144 doesn’t rush to place value judgements on the uni-context. Its implications, 145 and our seeming preference for it, could be so profound as to defy value 146 judgements, or even void them altogether. Our preference for it might be like 147 our preference for not being killed, or not being cheated: almost self-evident, 148 and usually not treated as a relevant object for value judgement. 149 150 So much to chew on with this, but a few details stood out immediately: 151 152 Do our shared sources of fear and anger really overpower our shared sources of 153 happiness and contentment? Some part of me resists that, although I can’t say 154 it’s untrue. 155 156 I guess one upside is that, if it’s true, it provides a relatively humane 157 explanation for our apparent obsession with baity negativity. It suggests that 158 if troubling shit proliferates in our feeds, that’s not because we all just 159 love thumbing through nastiness, but because nastiness commands bigger 160 audiences, due to the breadth of our sources of happiness. Happiness is just 161 harder to communicate and takes more time to contextualise. If true, this would 162 be a big relief. 163 164 Also, the description of attention management in the 19th century doesn’t ring 165 true to me, even though the underlying point might be strong. For example, 166 19th-century humans wrote novels, by hand, inhabiting and constructing 167 fictional contexts for extended periods, with many associated time-demands... 168 meaning they (or at least some of them) would have had to learn to concentrate. 169 But this slightly flawed comparison actually strengthens the point being made 170 about the uni-context, in my view. It opens up the possibility that 171 uni-contextuality could have emerged even earlier than described. It may have 172 started with the printing press, for example, or even before that, with the 173 told tale. Perhaps it came about through language itself, or maybe earlier 174 still, with the basic attention-sequestering capabilities that underlie all 175 communication. Does our need for the uni-context explain our love of 176 independence and freedom, qualities that allow us to range beyond our immediate 177 contexts? We have a rough idea that the more cognitively capable among our 178 fellow animals, when kept captive, are also more likely to try and escape (eg, 179 octopi)... is that a manifestation of their own yearning for a uni-context? 180 181 What I feel I need now are tips for navigating the uni-context. If it really is 182 an inevitability arising from human nature, and if it’s now boiling over 183 because we’re having to learn how to govern ourselves as a planetary 184 population, then I could definitely use some ideas for how to cope. I wouldn’t 185 be surprised if Callard is already thinking along these lines. I’ll definitely 186 be following her work as it develops. 187 188 Very compelling. Could have mind-blowing implications. I like that Callard 189 doesn’t rush to place value judgements on the uni-context. Its implications, 190 and our seeming preference for it, could be so profound as to defy value 191 judgements, or even void them altogether. Our preference for it might be like 192 our preference for not being killed, or not being cheated: almost self-evident, 193 and usually not treated as a relevant object for value judgement. 194 195 So much to chew on with this, but a few details stood out immediately: 196 197 Do our shared sources of fear and anger really overpower our shared sources of 198 happiness and contentment? Some part of me resists that, although I can’t say 199 it’s untrue. 200 201 I guess one upside is that, if it’s true, it provides a relatively humane 202 explanation for our apparent obsession with baity negativity. It suggests that 203 if troubling shit proliferates in our feeds, that’s not because we all just 204 love thumbing through nastiness, but because nastiness commands bigger 205 audiences, due to the breadth of our sources of happiness. Happiness is just 206 harder to communicate and takes more time to contextualise. If true, this would 207 be a big relief. 208 209 Also, the description of attention management in the 19th century doesn’t ring 210 true to me, even though the underlying point might be strong. For example, 211 19th-century humans wrote novels, by hand, inhabiting and constructing 212 fictional contexts for extended periods, with many associated time-demands... 213 meaning they (or at least some of them) would have had to learn to concentrate. 214 But this slightly flawed comparison actually strengthens the point being made 215 about the uni-context, in my view. It opens up the possibility that 216 uni-contextuality could have emerged even earlier than described. It may have 217 started with the printing press, for example, or even before that, with the 218 told tale. Perhaps it came about through language itself, or maybe earlier 219 still, with the basic attention-sequestering capabilities that underlie all 220 communication. Does our need for the uni-context explain our love of 221 independence and freedom, qualities that allow us to range beyond our immediate 222 contexts? We have a rough idea that the more cognitively capable among our 223 fellow animals, when kept captive, are also more likely to try and escape (eg, 224 octopi)... is that a manifestation of their own yearning for a uni-context? 225 226 What I feel I need now are tips for navigating the uni-context. If it really is 227 an inevitability arising from human nature, and if it’s now boiling over 228 because we’re having to learn how to govern ourselves as a planetary 229 population, then I could definitely use some ideas for how to cope. I wouldn’t 230 be surprised if Callard is already thinking along these lines. I’ll definitely 231 be following her work as it develops. 232 233 [60]Fave · 2 [61]Reply [62]Share 234 S 235 Steven Crozier 23d ago 236 237 There is something fishy about this concept, and for me it has something to do 238 with Callard's assertion about the inevitability of it. The one that 239 particularly stuck in my craw is the claimed inevitability of negative bias 240 because of its global universality. To me, this completely ignores the equally 241 global truth of the universality of certain forms of good: respect, civility, 242 kindness, compassion. To claim that negative bias abounds because it alone is 243 universally recognizable holds little water for me in the face of the truth 244 that everyone on the planet (except maybe for sociopaths) responds positively 245 to being treated well. The truth for me is that negative bias abounds 246 internationally because it is *easier* to (1) behave in a negative fashion and 247 not immediatley suffer or not recognize the negative consequences and (2) blame 248 the negative circumstances around me for the unfortunate contexts (locally and 249 globally) that we find ourselves in. It is hard -- hard, hard, hard -- to live 250 a virtuous life and the evidence abounds that fewer and fewer people are 251 choosing to make the effort. That does not make it inevitable, any more than 252 the "uni-context" as conceived by Callard is pre-ordained. It is simply the 253 sum of the accumulated weight of a global population that finds it less arduous 254 to live passively or negatively than make the effort required to behave in a 255 more positive manner. 256 257 There is something fishy about this concept, and for me it has something to do 258 with Callard's assertion about the inevitability of it. The one that 259 particularly stuck in my craw is the claimed inevitability of negative bias 260 because of its global universality. To me, this completely ignores the equally 261 global truth of the universality of certain forms of good: respect, civility, 262 kindness, compassion. To claim that negative bias abounds because it alone is 263 universally recognizable holds little water for me in the face of the truth 264 that everyone on the planet (except maybe for sociopaths) responds positively 265 to being treated well. The truth for me is that negative bias abounds 266 internationally because it is *easier* to (1) behave in a negative fashion and 267 not immediatley suffer or not recognize the negative consequences and (2) blame 268 the negative circumstances around me for the unfortunate contexts (locally and 269 globally) that we find ourselves in. It is hard -- hard, hard, hard -- to live 270 a virtuous life and the evidence abounds that fewer and fewer people are 271 choosing to make the effort. That does not make it inevitable, any more than 272 the "uni-context" as conceived by Callard is pre-ordained. It is simply the 273 sum of the accumulated weight of a global population that finds it less arduous 274 to live passively or negatively than make the effort required to behave in a 275 more positive manner. 276 277 [63]Fave · 0 [64]Reply [65]Share 278 [f2f7e15bc4] 279 Jason KottkeMOD 23d ago 280 281 Yeah, I thought the idea of the uni-context was interesting, but some of her 282 and her interlocutor's conclusions were of the confirmation of priors variety. 283 284 Yeah, I thought the idea of the uni-context was interesting, but some of her 285 and her interlocutor's conclusions were of the confirmation of priors variety. 286 287 [66]Fave · 0 [67]Share 288 J 289 Jeremiads 20d ago 290 291 I don't think she's actually saying that negative bias is inevitable, she's 292 saying that it survives cross-contextual communication more easily than 293 positive bias (specifically because communicating a positive bias requires a 294 more detailed understanding of its specific context). I don't necessarily agree 295 with the conceptualisation, but I don't think she's arguing that negativity is 296 inevitable, just that it's easier for it to cross contexts (a much less 297 ambitious claim). 298 299 Also, I don't think she's necessarily addressing close interpersonal 300 relationships in which we treat one another with varying levels of goodness, 301 because these relationships are likely to occur within diverse contexts. 302 Instead, I suspect she's addressing relationships that occur within massive, 303 merged contexts (ie more like social media comments, less like neighbourly 304 banter). While I'm still unsure whether her conceptualisation holds, I can 305 definitely see glimmers of evidence. For example, not just in the prevalence of 306 negativity in uni-contexts, but also in the shallowness and homogeneity of much 307 of the positive content that does spread widely through uni-contexts (eg, 308 baby-focused content seems to thrive, regardless of the species of baby). 309 310 Also, I'd challenge this, and caution against using it as a basic ethical 311 principle: 312 313 It is hard -- hard, hard, hard -- to live a virtuous life 314 315 Certainly, it can be hard to live a virtuous life. Difficulty can even be said 316 to enhance virtue (ie, the same virtuous act can be deemed more virtuous if 317 it's harder to carry out). Often, virtue will necessitate sacrificing one's own 318 wants and needs to favour others. Sometimes it will even necessitate that one 319 suffers. But is it a precondition, that virtue be difficult? I highly doubt 320 that. Once a species has the capability to manage its resource consumption to 321 the degree that we can, it's absolutely worth asking how we structure that 322 resource management. What do we expect it to incentivise? What do we expect it 323 to make easy? We're unlikely to be able to make living virtuously fully easy 324 but can't we make it easier? Can we structure our economies and governance to 325 reward more virtue, at least, than they do now? 326 327 In my view, we absolutely can. But, to get better at being virtuous as a 328 species, it's very important that we don't fall for this idea that virtue must 329 always be hard (or even -- hard, hard, hard). This is a sneaky Christian 330 pseudo-virtue that's gradually wormed its way deep down into many societies' 331 basic moral calculi, by convincing people that they can't expect a life of 332 virtue to be easy or rewarding. Christians love tying virtue to suffering, it's 333 baked into their theology (the greatest act a god could ever carry out being 334 sending his offspring to experience the nobility of human suffering). This 335 impulse has embedded itself so deeply in Christian societies that you can still 336 find it at work long after Christ himself has faded from popularity; for 337 example, the way many British people approach discussions about social welfare 338 carries this assumption that there's inherent virtue in strife. 339 340 I like Callard's theory because it offers a behavioural rather than a moral 341 explanation for many of our current woes. It tries to examine how a species 342 with particularly high cognitive and social capabilities, a creature extremely 343 skilled at creating contexts (but also one that craves widening those 344 contexts), will react when forced to apply its cognitive capabilities across 345 larger and more complicated contexts of its own creation. Ie, we're animals, 346 and like any other animal we sometimes adapt our behaviour in ways that 347 unwittingly harm us. If people are becoming less virtuous, and if this is 348 happening because we've adapted our behaviour to disincentivise virtue, then we 349 ought to examine and react to this without making blanket condemnations and 350 simply commanding everyone to do better. If the systems that govern our 351 behaviour are failing us, the best approach would be to address the systems 352 where we can, and where we can't, to learn how to deal with their unintended 353 consequences in virtuous ways. 354 355 As for confirmations of priors, I detected some of that in Thompson's 356 questioning but not in Callard's answers. She tended to set him straight. But I 357 might have missed something, because this stuff is very abstract and ties my 358 brain in knots. I'd appreciate it if someone could point out any 359 question-begging that I've missed. 360 361 I don't think she's actually saying that negative bias is inevitable, she's 362 saying that it survives cross-contextual communication more easily than 363 positive bias (specifically because communicating a positive bias requires a 364 more detailed understanding of its specific context). I don't necessarily agree 365 with the conceptualisation, but I don't think she's arguing that negativity is 366 inevitable, just that it's easier for it to cross contexts (a much less 367 ambitious claim). 368 369 Also, I don't think she's necessarily addressing close interpersonal 370 relationships in which we treat one another with varying levels of goodness, 371 because these relationships are likely to occur within diverse contexts. 372 Instead, I suspect she's addressing relationships that occur within massive, 373 merged contexts (ie more like social media comments, less like neighbourly 374 banter). While I'm still unsure whether her conceptualisation holds, I can 375 definitely see glimmers of evidence. For example, not just in the prevalence of 376 negativity in uni-contexts, but also in the shallowness and homogeneity of much 377 of the positive content that does spread widely through uni-contexts (eg, 378 baby-focused content seems to thrive, regardless of the species of baby). 379 380 Also, I'd challenge this, and caution against using it as a basic ethical 381 principle: 382 383 It is hard -- hard, hard, hard -- to live a virtuous life 384 385 Certainly, it can be hard to live a virtuous life. Difficulty can even be said 386 to enhance virtue (ie, the same virtuous act can be deemed more virtuous if 387 it's harder to carry out). Often, virtue will necessitate sacrificing one's own 388 wants and needs to favour others. Sometimes it will even necessitate that one 389 suffers. But is it a precondition, that virtue be difficult? I highly doubt 390 that. Once a species has the capability to manage its resource consumption to 391 the degree that we can, it's absolutely worth asking how we structure that 392 resource management. What do we expect it to incentivise? What do we expect it 393 to make easy? We're unlikely to be able to make living virtuously fully easy 394 but can't we make it easier? Can we structure our economies and governance to 395 reward more virtue, at least, than they do now? 396 397 In my view, we absolutely can. But, to get better at being virtuous as a 398 species, it's very important that we don't fall for this idea that virtue must 399 always be hard (or even -- hard, hard, hard). This is a sneaky Christian 400 pseudo-virtue that's gradually wormed its way deep down into many societies' 401 basic moral calculi, by convincing people that they can't expect a life of 402 virtue to be easy or rewarding. Christians love tying virtue to suffering, it's 403 baked into their theology (the greatest act a god could ever carry out being 404 sending his offspring to experience the nobility of human suffering). This 405 impulse has embedded itself so deeply in Christian societies that you can still 406 find it at work long after Christ himself has faded from popularity; for 407 example, the way many British people approach discussions about social welfare 408 carries this assumption that there's inherent virtue in strife. 409 410 I like Callard's theory because it offers a behavioural rather than a moral 411 explanation for many of our current woes. It tries to examine how a species 412 with particularly high cognitive and social capabilities, a creature extremely 413 skilled at creating contexts (but also one that craves widening those 414 contexts), will react when forced to apply its cognitive capabilities across 415 larger and more complicated contexts of its own creation. Ie, we're animals, 416 and like any other animal we sometimes adapt our behaviour in ways that 417 unwittingly harm us. If people are becoming less virtuous, and if this is 418 happening because we've adapted our behaviour to disincentivise virtue, then we 419 ought to examine and react to this without making blanket condemnations and 420 simply commanding everyone to do better. If the systems that govern our 421 behaviour are failing us, the best approach would be to address the systems 422 where we can, and where we can't, to learn how to deal with their unintended 423 consequences in virtuous ways. 424 425 As for confirmations of priors, I detected some of that in Thompson's 426 questioning but not in Callard's answers. She tended to set him straight. But I 427 might have missed something, because this stuff is very abstract and ties my 428 brain in knots. I'd appreciate it if someone could point out any 429 question-begging that I've missed. 430 431 [68]Fave · 2 [69]Share 432 433 [70] Reply in this thread 434 435 × 436 437 If you feel like this comment goes against the grain of the [71]community 438 guidelines or is otherwise inappropriate, [72]please let me know and I will 439 take a look at it. 440 441 In order to comment or fave, you need to be a kottke.org member. [73]Check out 442 your membership options. 443 444 Note: If you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're 445 stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or 446 extensions. Or try [74]logging out and then [75]back in. Still having trouble? 447 [76]Email me! 448 449 × 450 451 In order to comment or fave, you need to be a kottke.org member. [77]Check out 452 your membership options. 453 454 Note: If you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're 455 stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or 456 extensions. Or try [78]logging out and then [79]back in. Still having trouble? 457 [80]Email me! 458 459 × 460 461 In order to comment or fave, you need to be a current kottke.org member. [81] 462 Check out your options for renewal. 463 464 × 465 466 You cannot comment or reply to this thread. 467 468 [noscript] 469 470 References: 471 472 [1] https://kottke.org/ 473 [2] https://kottke.org/ 474 [3] https://kottke.org/ 475 [4] https://kottke.org/ 476 [5] https://kottke.org/ 477 [6] https://kottke.org/ 478 [8] https://kottke.memberful.com/auth/sign_in 479 [9] https://kottke.org/ 480 [10] https://kottke.org/members 481 [11] https://kottke.org/newsletter 482 [12] https://kottke.org/goods 483 [13] https://kottke.org/everfresh 484 [14] https://kottke.org/about 485 [16] https://srv.carbonads.net/ads/click/x/GTND427YFTSIC2JLFTALYKQUFTADT5Q7CABIKZ3JCAADEKJWCK7I45QKCYYDTK7MCEYI5KJECTBDK5Q7FTBDL5QKC6SIE53UC6YDVK3EHJNCLSIZ 486 [17] https://srv.carbonads.net/ads/click/x/GTND427YFTSIC2JLFTALYKQUFTADT5Q7CABIKZ3JCAADEKJWCK7I45QKCYYDTK7MCEYI5KJECTBDK5Q7FTBDL5QKC6SIE53UC6YDVK3EHJNCLSIZ 487 [18] http://carbonads.net/?utm_source=kottkeorg&utm_medium=ad_via_link&utm_campaign=in_unit&utm_term=carbon 488 [19] http://carbonads.net/?utm_source=kottkeorg&utm_medium=ad_via_link&utm_campaign=in_unit&utm_term=carbon 489 [20] https://kottke.org/newsletter 490 [21] http://feeds.kottke.org/main 491 [22] https://bsky.app/profile/kottke.org 492 [23] https://mastodon.social/@kottke 493 [24] https://kottke.org/members 494 [25] https://www.arcustech.com/ 495 [26] https://kottke.org/tag/burgers 496 [27] https://kottke.org/tag/death 497 [28] https://kottke.org/tag/photography 498 [29] https://kottke.org/tag/crying%20at%20work 499 [30] https://kottke.org/tag/black%20holes 500 [31] https://kottke.org/tag/Old%20Custer 501 [32] https://kottke.org/tag/film%20school 502 [33] https://kottke.org/tag/potatoes 503 [34] http://www.kottke.org/ 504 [35] https://www.derekthompson.org/p/a-philosophers-one-word-theory-to 505 [36] https://www.derekthompson.org/p/a-philosophers-one-word-theory-to 506 [37] https://www.derekthompson.org/p/a-philosophers-one-word-theory-to 507 [38] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 508 [40] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 509 [41] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 510 [42] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 511 [43] https://bsky.app/intent/compose?text=I%E2%80%99ve%20felt%20this%20for%20years%20%28blogs%20have%20global%20context%29%3A%20%26%238220%3BThe%20uni-context%20is%20a%20scenario%20in%20which%20the%20ways%20you%20should%20act%20become%20the%20same%20across%20all%20different%20contexts.%20There%E2%80%99s%20just%20one%20set%20of%20norms%20you%20should%20follow%20all%20times%2C%20irrespective%20of%20context.%26%238221%3B%20https%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 512 [44] https://mastodonshare.com/?text=%20https%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 513 [45] https://reddit.com/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 514 [46] https://threads.net/intent/post?text=I%E2%80%99ve%20felt%20this%20for%20years%20%28blogs%20have%20global%20context%29%3A%20%26%238220%3BThe%20uni-context%20is%20a%20scenario%20in%20which%20the%20ways%20you%20should%20act%20become%20the%20same%20across%20all%20different%20contexts.%20There%E2%80%99s%20just%20one%20set%20of%20norms%20you%20should%20follow%20all%20times%2C%20irrespective%20of%20context.%26%238221%3B%20https%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 515 [47] mailto:?subject=Check%20out%20this%20kottke.org%20post...&body=%0Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 516 [48] sms:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 517 [49] https://wa.me/?text=https%3A%2F%2Fkottke.org%2F26%2F08%2F0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen 518 [50] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 519 [51] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 520 [52] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 521 [53] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 522 [54] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 523 [55] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 524 [56] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 525 [57] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 526 [58] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 527 [59] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen#cmt-17173 528 [60] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 529 [61] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 530 [62] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen#cmt-17271 531 [63] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 532 [64] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 533 [65] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen#cmt-17292 534 [66] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 535 [67] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen#cmt-17297 536 [68] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 537 [69] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen#cmt-17339 538 [70] https://kottke.org/26/08/0049474-the-uni-context-is-a-scen# 539 [71] https://kottke.org/threads/guidelines 540 [72] mailto:[email protected]?subject=kottke.org%20flagged%20comment 541 [73] https://kottke.org/members 542 [74] https://kottke.memberful.com/auth/sign_out 543 [75] https://kottke.memberful.com/auth/sign_in 544 [76] mailto:[email protected]?subject=kottke.org%20feedback 545 [77] https://kottke.org/members 546 [78] https://kottke.memberful.com/auth/sign_out 547 [79] https://kottke.memberful.com/auth/sign_in 548 [80] mailto:[email protected]?subject=kottke.org%20feedback 549 [81] https://kottke.memberful.com/account/subscriptions