Modern Website Layouts and How We Interact With It

 Lately, many businesses have uniformly chosen long scrolling, wide pages as their main website layout, justifying it by a great way to tell a story, reducing click fatigue, and the ability to present a large amount of information on one page. Those decisions appear to be backed by some user research, however, it is a well-known fact that a person can absorb information in fragments, and not in its endless flow. Just like we need time to digest one book page at a time without any distractions, before flipping to the next page, in the same way, we need to be able to concentrate and not be visually distracted or overwhelmed by any other visual elements, such as giant photos that take up most of the space, and/or a scroll bar (without borders, so to speak) that moves the wide page with its heavy content endlessly up and down.

It seems like most of the businesses that make such choices are merely focused on the trendiness of visual representation, and not necessarily on its friendliness and digestibility. I personally get scroll fatigue when I view some of these trendy websites, filled with large, attractive commercial photos that are scrolled with text endlessly up and down. 

Traditional print designers and a more contemporary digital design expert, Jacob Nielsen, suggested that a user can read the content comfortably when it does not exceed 45-75 characters (700-800 px) per line. In this case, why do so many UI and web designers make such strange choices of dispersing the content, text + image mixtures, throughout the page horizontally? Shouldn't we try to keep the text more or less at the center and ensure that it does not exceed the 700-800-pixel threshold? 

...And what if we try to keep it more organized by reintroducing and emphasizing a center-forced three-part layout, where we still use the spaces on either side of the centered content in a more organized and readable manner? This way, a reader understands what the page's primary content is, and where he can find secondary sources to aid him with information when needed:

Job Search in Globalized AI Systems and Time Drain

Students are encouraged to beat the path to such job platform doors as LinkedIn, and they do, just like to other job marketplaces where companies post descriptive job openings to attract a larger candidate pool. At first glance, it looks very promising because a job seeker can easily set the criteria through filters to match his interests and area of expertise. 

It feels convenient for a job hunter to send Resumes through the available shortcuts that such platforms offer, for example: Quick Apply, Easy Apply, or Express Apply. It saves a lot of time and is somewhat promising.

But then there are a lot of companies with matching job posts that require candidates to apply externally, in their own HR systems or adjacent enterprise-level systems such as ADP, Oracle, or PeopleSoft. In this application journey, candidates are sometimes asked to reply to questions that seem overly extensive and even unnecessary, such as the exact street address. ethnicity, disability status, date of birth, or social media profiles. Besides that, there are fields with additional questions where candidates must repeat what they already articulated in their Resumes, which plainly voids the purpose of the latter. 

Because of how nationally accessible and easily discoverable these job postings are, candidates from every corner of the country can apply, meaning that recruiters and hiring managers must spend a lot of time selecting, filtering, interviewing, narrowing down, and then interviewing again the selected candidates. But even before the select pool of candidates reaches the sight of recruiters, ATS (Applicant Tracking System) uses algorithms to narrow this pool down. And because AI does not deal with ambiguities, proximities, or allegories, it only selects the ones whose applications or resumes have literal matchings to the job criteria, word by word. And on top of it, we've seen cases when the AI selection systems were trained on biased historical data, which deprives many deserving candidates of being noticed.

The analogy that comes to mind when I think about this Globalized and yet restrictive and inflexible selection process is the professional version of dating fatigue, where there is an illusion of plenty, and yet, nobody in particular who really matches you, regardless of how algorithmically compatible a candidate may seem.

Job hunting these days resembles gambling, where you put a lot of time and effort applying to countless jobs, to only receive a reply from a few employers, or even none. With such regular time drain, one may start thinking: is it even good advice to tell someone to keep pushing? Not to give up when you get rejected or unnoticed by tens and hundreds, and even thousands of employers on the global marketplaces? This just does not feel right. There must be an alternative, more realistic, and less time-draining approach. How did we interact with each other before the age of technocracy, and how did we find the right people to help us with something? By word of mouth. 

Perhaps it is a good idea to stay local and practice authenticity with your network, expanding it gradually and slowly, without any mechanical or overly generic substitutions. But this is just a vague idea of how to make the job hunt more meaningful and precise, without the bitter aftertaste of time loss and meaninglessness.

Technology: A Pure Surrogate to Relationships or a Potential Aide?

When we engage in heavy texting with our potential partner, it gradually and seamlessly replaces a real interaction; it becomes the ultimate surrogate to real intimacy, and because of the amount of effort that is put into these texts, there is a deceitful sense of accomplishment that demotivates further efforts to meet in person.

By the same token, if you step onto the path of a complete digital experience, eliminating even the remotest sense of connection, such as texting someone you know already, you build yourself an alternate reality, where your world is built of appealing male and female avatars and where you play by rules that do not necessarily replicate the rules, norms and traditions of real world. It may be creative and very inspirational; however, if this becomes the world to which you resort during most of your idle hours, it can be concluded that most people from your nearest circles and a potential love partner have all lost you to the world of pure fiction.

In this alternate world, you satisfy all of your urgent needs: from camaraderie interactions to intimate fantasies and love aspirations. By the time you exit this reality and find yourself back in the very physical, pragmatic, and even cynical environment, you may find yourself unprepared and exhausted in advance. 

But what if we design tools and spaces that would, on the contrary, aid our relationships and make them more enriching and satisfying? The kind that would encourage you to always stay present and explore more of it, instead of resorting to the alternate reality that is built on pure algorithms? 

Addictive Technologies - Should They Be Controlled?

There are a lot of conversations around the topic of addictive technologies, such as gaming, social media, and the internet in general, and how designers create digital products that are purposefully habit-forming. It is not a secret that in the past twenty or more years, we've inherited generations that think and engage with the world differently than their predecessors. Is it necessarily worse? Depends.

Engaging games with storylines and multiple lifecycles of an avatar, for example, create a parallel reality where societies have their own rules, stakes, and friendships. Eventually, this reality may not only become important to a user, but sometimes even more substantial than the realities of a physical world where we have to navigate. Our brain's neural response does not really discriminate between a virtual and physical reality, and therefore lives the experience that is offered to it. After such an intense and engaging digital exposure that demands users' cognitive and emotional reserves, there is no time or energy left for real life, and although a user may not miss out the perceived important experience in the digital world, they end up missing out their physical life with its real circumstances and its own complex systems. 

When the time spent online is accumulated into a critical number of hours per day, per month, and per year, we can observe individuals who are somewhat disoriented in physical spaces and struggle to build a meaningful rapport with others. 

It has been determined that such behavioral patterns indicate a formed habit that has unnoticeably turned into addiction. And this type of addiction stands in line with other formally recognized behavioral addictions such as food, shopping, or thrill-seeking activities.

Every behavioral addiction has a remedy or common methods to moderate and control it. For some, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy may be a solution, for others it could be something else (ex., Motivational Enhancement Therapy or Exposure Therapy). 

The critical question, however, remains current: Do we need a system in place that will monitor the use of technology to ensure that it does not become compulsive? And if so, who will be responsible for it, companies that offer the platforms themselves, formal intermediaries, or will it be strictly the users' responsibility?

Texting about Delicate Matters and Losing Context In the Process

 Resorting to texting about topics that require constant emotional feedback is pure barbarity. It strips two people of their fundamental right to fully express their feelings and emotional states that are directly associated with a particular phrase or a message. Those assistive communication cues provide rich context to the conversation, and without them, the messages are interpreted poorly and sometimes entirely differently than what they meant to convey. 

For some reason, many users do not see or recognize the importance of such vital contexts and never offer to step up their game and meet in person to clarify the matter and talk over it candidly and attentively. As a result, friendships or romantic connections that would otherwise have high potential never develop further and end abruptly, without the chance for rehabilitation.

It feels like adults in their conscious years of existence may benefit from a 101 Digital Communication workshop where some fundamental elements of human interaction are articulated in plain English, repetitively and methodically. Maybe then, a lot of relationships that have been reduced to mediocre text interactions could be revitalized and given a fresh breeze of life.

Coding Bias and What It Can Do to Our Future

Ideally, the way programmers train the algorithms should make our lives significantly easier and more manageable, saving a lot of waiting and processing time across all systems and functions.

However, because machine learning mechanisms, especially their early forms, were designed by a homogeneous group of individuals with their own biases, the algorithms included flaws that would compute information at someone's disadvantage and undeservedly so.

Some of such examples were well demonstrated in the Coded Bias (2020) documentary:

Scenario 1, where citizens of Britain were monitored and screened without an explicit announcement. It was not mentioned anywhere within the jurisdiction and was done in a rather sneaky way. The algorithms with which the human profile was analyzed were severely biased towards individuals of a certain race and demographics. And the mere fact that such surveillance could take place in a civilized democratic society is alarming. What if it signifies the beginning of a totalitarian government form where human rights are systematically violated, and where prejudiced judgments are made swiftly, without a chance to appeal and rehabilitate one's good name and reputation?

Scenario 2: Candidates who applied to Amazon (tech?) jobs were filtered by gender, and the ones who got hired were predominantly male because of the way the AI tool was trained to discern information. For example, the Resumes where the word woman was present in any form or context were weeded out.  This also meant, however, that candidates with more gender neutral Resumes, where first names could belong to either gender, and where organizations' names did not mention the word woman, had the chance to be invited to an interview.

Both of these scenarios demonstrate dangerous trends, and we do need systems in place that will overcome such biases and ensure that they won't penetrate our social infrastructure so deeply that it would be nearly impossible to eradicate in the later stages.

Coding should replicate the real world with its sentiments and help meet its vital needs, and not copycat its existing problems into new algorithms.

 

Cyberbullying and Trolling

Although the internet can provide a safe space for those who want to express their ideas, feelings, and points of view without exposing their personal details, it can also become an outlet for the ones who play out their darkest traits uncontrollably and unpunishably. 

Trolling and cyberbullying have become so widespread that it created the need to come up with stricter laws and regulations through which victims of such attacks could prosecute their perpetrators.

In the early 2000s, I was subjected to trolling on a few separate occasions. Most of the time the attacks came from anonymous male figures who questioned, mocked, and insulted my intellectual abilities as a female. Some of their comments were so coarse, cynical, and vulgar that I’d feel as if the ground had been pulled from under my feet. I’d question my own existence and the degree of trust and openness with which I can perceive the world around me.

And because back then there weren’t any widely used mechanisms to detect and prosecute anonymous bullies/trolls, the only possible way to control the situation was through banning a specific account through which a person executed such activities. However, this measure wasn’t always effective since a bully could create multiple accounts through which he continued to troll a person or multiple individuals. This way a moderator of an assumed public space would be overwhelmed by the never-ending virtual battle.

Regardless of the covered timeframe, whether it is the early 2000s or our days, the bullying that takes place on public forums or social media accounts, mirrors the same type of bullying that happens in real life, with the only difference that its virtual version is magnified in number of active participants as well as witnesses, and may therefore have a stronger effect on a victim.

Through trial and error, and in response to countless cases of cyberbullying with tragic outcomes, new mechanisms have emerged on technical and legal planes to mitigate its impact.

These are great advancements that we can appreciate on one hand, but on the other: the fact that cyberbullying continues to emerge in its new forms and harm younger users, means that the remedies should be found within the boundaries of one’s own family and physical community, where young minds are shaped with a certain belief system, mentality, and countless biases embedded in their intimate and social circles.

Expert in This, Guru in That, and Sense of Integrity

Digital technologies gave us the freedom to disseminate information with minimal monetary and time investment. Everything happens instantly and does not require someone's scrutinized moderation or approval. We are the sole moderators and police of our own content, unless it involves something utterly obscene or illegal that must be reported.

If you are an avid user of digital media and tools and are enthusiastic enough to create and share daily content, there is a high chance of establishing a strong online presence, attracting an impressive number of followers.

There is no problem with publicity and followers whatsoever, however...:

There is a widely used term on the Russian segment of the internet (RuNet), known as инфоцыгане, which literally means: info-gypsies or information gypsies. This term has a negative connotation that describes any publicly ambitious online enthusiasts who, in one way or another, lure an audience to their channels and accounts with questionable ideas, products, and services that make an instant impression on the viewer. 

The only constants that appear to matter in this equation are the power of conviction and personal charisma, while the true value of the advice, product, or service provided is not subject to critique or any digging. It is not to say that some of the bloggers or other public enthusiasts aren't insightful and inspirational, but the main issue that is laid out by the skeptical sector of online users is the possible harmful consequences for the naive and inexperienced portion of the audience. What if a superficial piece of advice from someone you admire and follow will do a great disservice to you in the long run? 

To become a successful influencer, you don't need any certification or license, nor do you need a formal educational background. There is no degree in Blogging or Influencing, after all. With this informational freedom, one can think that there is no obligation to do something with integrity in mind, ensuring that there is a true value behind the delivered message or material. As a result, many ambitious wannabe experts produce superficial content that does not pass critical scrutiny.

Perhaps online influencers, especially the ones who claim to be life experts without any formal education, must be explicit about it and provide disclaimers to ensure that the viewers do not take any of the pop-culture advice at face value.

Perhaps it would be helpful to incorporate virtue ethics into this whole process of content-sharing, as it considers the personal characteristics of an influencer regardless of the final outcome. It ensures that a person acts by the innate character traits that are virtuous, and therefore, by default, cannot cause any intentional harm to others. One would always and consciously choose the right course of action through the practical wisdom (phronesis in Greek).

Online Reputation and the Job Market

There is a common recommendation to minimize your online presence when it comes to the part of your personality that does not involve professional skills, because there is a risk of being eliminated from the job pool. This recommendation, in my opinion, can be limiting and damaging because it puts unreasonable constraints on your creative expression and the right to be authentic and spontaneous through whichever outlets you choose.

Present-day professional expectations of how the candidate should be seen have a discouraging factor because of their stifling effect. Don't say this, don't do that, don't be publicly YOU under normal circumstances... To be able to land a reputable job, you must have a professional presence at every turn, or else...

As a result, recruiters have a high risk of bringing on board someone featureless. There is only so much that you can grasp about a mysterious, reserved, and well-behaved new hiree. Not that it is not important to have good manners and exhibit respect toward your surroundings, but there will always be some grey area, something that is not fully understood and that later may take everyone by surprise, sometimes an unpleasant one.

However, if hiring managers have a generally sober understanding of who they are hiring, based on the candidate's both: professional skills and personal peculiarities, they will most likely bring on board someone who would fit in professionally and culturally. Personal peculiarities may divert one employer, but attract just the right one in turn, who receives your personality well, and maybe the kind that brings the exact values and vibes that they precisely need in their company.

Of course, it would be wise to moderate your public presence that does not represent you from the professional side, but completely removing it just for the fear of being weeded out from the candidate pool is a little personal betrayal. 

...How far should one go to create a perfectly acceptable social profile? 

Scientific Management: Digital Spaces and How Far Can We Go with Control?

Scientific Management is a controversial approach to work, which has been adopted by many agencies and employers, as any process requires consistency and efficiency to ensure that the production and manufacturing of goods meet set quotas and deadlines. A scientific approach to work management ensures that the outcome of individual and collective efforts is replicable and reliable, regardless of the frequency of times with which it's been performed.

Some perceive this approach as inhumane and unethical because it puts a person in a harsh framework and does not leave him any space for creativity. By design, the Taylorian scientific approach focuses on efficiency and reliability, leaving no space for improvisation. For the purposes for which it is designed, it proves to work as long as nobody deviates from the established rules and standards. 

Taylorian approach to tasks may be beneficial in every field of work or life. To maintain a large household, for example, strategically positioned appliances and furniture, and a certain order in which the tasks are completed, may significantly improve life quality and yield more physical and mental energy during the day to spend and enjoy more time with loved ones.

 When scientific management is taken too far, however, it may cause a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction at work. The present-day definition of such experience is micro-management. Constant and relentless monitoring took the form of a watchful digital eye: the camera. They are strategically positioned in every corner of a building, with the exception of bathrooms (but you never know), and every activity, every move, and even facial expressions are captured. Unless we pretend that it is not there, there is really no genuine way of relaxing and getting comfortable around our workspaces. There is a quiet and creeping sense of terror within us about the fragility of the situation, about the ease with which we can be replaced, for subtle reasons, and with no constructive feedback. This is the case when Taylorianism went too far, far beyond the simple task control, all the way to our cells and under the skin, we can feel it in our lungs....it interferes with our daily inhales and exhales. 

With all of these advanced technological tools that can easily track and monitor our daily activities in physical and digital spaces, is it absolutely necessary to take away our autonomy? Why not have faith in our best intentions and give us some space for a more improvised yet meaningful and purposeful expression? 

The Meaning of Time in a Digitized World

 How we experience the passage of time really depends on the intensity and quality of our focus, and how quickly or slowly it shifts from one subject to another. Emotions we experience during a particular timeframe count because based on them we can perceive time as something dreadfully slow or something that we do not even notice. When we perform something repetitive and mechanical that doesn't require a complex thought process, we feel that time is still, but we can't wait to get over it and move on to something more exciting and sensational. Another way to experience time is not to think of it at all: it happens naturally when we are fully immersed in the process and engaged with it completely with our mind, body, and soul. In such cases, the time goes by swiftly.

However, when we look back, the aftertaste of such experiences is felt in a reversed way. The series of dull and mechanical activities that may accumulate over several years feel so insignificant that they are perceived as a few months and the motivation to do something interesting and more engaging in the near future still persists. On the other hand, the accumulation of complex, exciting, and fulfilling activities, even if they were all accomplished within a month, may feel as if they lasted for a significant time period because of how rich in quality and satisfaction this whole experience has been.

Nowadays many of our activities involve digital spaces - their range is vast and diverse, and they may include something dull and repetitive, such as data entry, or, on the contrary, something that requires a higher cognitive effort, such as programming or drafting. 

Another dimension that may be played out independently or represent a part of some other cognitive process is creativity. A painter spends hours and days in his studio, working on a masterpiece, immersed in a creative flow that elevates his existence above time, gravitational forces, and an earthy sense of being. Some magic happens within the boundaries of that physical space. When such creative forces are extended onto the digital interface, do they persist in their quality even though the tools that are used to express that creativity aren't organic but artificial? It may be the case because when an artist continues to be fully and undividedly immersed in the flow regardless of the chosen medium, it suggests that this unique dimension, which is above time and space, is still available to him.

Organic Social Experience in a Digitized World

It is worth mentioning that the more mediums are introduced into our daily lives, the more distanced we find ourselves from each other physically. This has become especially apparent with the introduction of high-speed internet. Yet, we find ourselves effortlessly and quickly connecting with the entire world on a mental plane, capable of interacting with anyone regardless of their geographic location. We may find ourselves striking virtual friendships that can be deep and exciting, full of substance and content that can be explored further.

The globalized virtual platform allows even the humblest among us to find solace in digital organizations that focus on a specific field of interest or concern. We can articulate our thoughts and bring up apprehensions anonymously, without risking being detected and ridiculed openly.

The humblest and the shiest introverts have an opportunity to become recognized virtually and shine through with their unique technical skills, whether it is gaming, designing a platform, or hacking a system. They do not need to go through the anxiety and stress of networking and presenting themselves to the physical mass. It is enough to have solid hardware with rich memory and high-speed internet within the boundaries of their own room. This experience could be both satisfying and rewarding for such focused and introverted individuals, even if it means missing out more on natural kinds of interactions where social skills are very noticeable and desirable. 

But what about those among us who crave traditional types of interactions where shared physical spaces are a vital part of our interactional experience? It seems that because of how quickly and constantly our intellectual curiosity is satisfied with a single click of a "search" command,  the need to ask insightful questions in person hasn't only become obsolete, but the skill of asking good questions has deteriorated. It appears that everything that we need to know is available at our fingertips, and we unhesitantly replace a more fluid and dynamic type of information with a static one, generated through a digital search box. 

A lot of dialogues are gradually reduced to need-based interactions, where language is used conservatively, with a limited and focused vocabulary. These types of dialogues are practical and actionable, and they can release a lot of productivity into our daily lives when we need to run errands, complete a project, or a simple transaction, but they do not predispose to allegorical improvisations, where the social plane could be used as a verbal playground.

This social transmutation, of course, happens unnoticeably. It might not take a long time until we find ourselves in an excessively linear and structured world, where not only its architecture is flat, predictable, and repetitive, but the conversations that happen within its boundaries carry the same characteristics. 

If we end up finding ourselves trapped in such an extreme state of structure and predictability, will we be aware of it? 

Or will we immerse in it so seamlessly that it will be deemed an organic and innate capacity within us, a genetic imprint that will become a part of our ancestral memory?

And those few among us who may fall out of the dormant state now and then, will we be able to recreate organic conversational spaces? 

The following discourse may be full of exaggerations, but it reflects some visible social trends, where an informational exchange is escalated in speed, fragmented into smaller particles, and peeled off from any verbal residue that is not practical or focused. 

If we unplug ourselves from this relentless cycle even for a moment, we may discover a void that has been quietly and steadily expanding within us. 

The Medium is The Message, But in Which Way?

 There are so many mediums that were introduced to us in the past couple of centuries that we haven't even noticed how dramatically it impacted not only the form and shape of our physical architecture but also the architecture of our relationships with each other and with our own selves.

How do we understand that not only the content that is delivered through a certain medium has the message (or is the message), but the medium itself, regardless of its content, is, in fact, the message?

When we think about electricity, there is no well thought, or articulated message in it, but in itself, it creates the concept of time and space when it becomes an indivisible part of our lives. It delivers light into our homes, lightens up the streets, and serves many other functions beyond lights. 

Electrical current could be considered a message because it represents a certain era within which it exists and the degree to which certain societies are exposed to it. The medium's message could be understood when it is compared and contrasted between different societies. For example, the societies in which electricity has a more widespread presence, how different are they from the, so to speak, less fortunate societies that more often than not follow the phases of natural light?

Because of how subtly electricity shapes our lifestyles, we don't even realize when it happens. We just accept it as a given fact, and build our lives around it: we are awake during the evenings and our cognitive and physical activities do not stop at the sunset. But this is just one of the many examples that demonstrate how radically, and at the same time subtly, one medium can shape our lives and even alter our anatomical and cognitive abilities.

The same principle can be translated into other mediums that shape our lives unnoticeably: iPhones, laptops, smartwatches, and the internet itself, of course. They are indispensable parts of our social architecture and therefore symbolize everything that is fundamental to our survival within the technocratic socium. It is not just about the status, but also about the mere survival principle: how technologically savvy are you? How fast can you adapt to newly emerging technologies with their automation at an escalating speed? If you are behind, you miss out on life: staying in touch with others, updating your professional skills to meet new criteria, navigating through automated systems in public spaces such as transportation, check-ins and outs, purchasing, subscriptions, and other vital interactions with digital data.

It is very easy to get carried away with those all-accommodating and all-consuming technologies, forgetting about what's essentially natural for us as humans. How are we to survive in wild environments where you must follow a natural GPS such as the Sun? Is it unnerving to even think about the possibility of being unplugged from the internet for more than a day? How about one month or a year?

If the messages that our mediums carry aren't apparent or are very difficult to define, it is helpful to put them in comparison with other, more secluded cultures, where those mediums are introduced. 

When oriental societies come in touch with new mediums, one can see how difficult it is for them to preserve their authenticity under such an abundant volume of information, and the channels through which it is delivered to them. Hardware and software capture their lives and turn them into a cultural surrogate that has no authentic cohesiveness or unity based on their core, ancient values, but rather connects them on the basis of a temporary interest: a function or a transaction. To an oriental society, the medium could, therefore, carry a completely different message: isolation, fragmentation, uprooting. 

Because of how deeply we are immersed in our technologies, we sometimes pass inadequate judgments towards those who are somewhat behind in utilizing these "intuitive" and fundamentally important tools/mediums. The older generation may struggle to figure out how to use some of the settings and programs on the phone screen, and a younger person may conclude that they are illiterate or "slow". In doing so they devalue all of the solid, real-life experiences that an older person was exposed to. 

It appears that the messages that mediums carry could have strong historical significance, but could also be controversial, conflicting, and sometimes even biased if they prompt us to pass harsh judgments onto our surroundings. 

Either way, the medium is the message regardless of its content because it shapes our society and carries a historically significant impact on the destiny of our civilization.

Digitized Romance

The dating scene can be overwhelming. An abundance of choice is an illusion that gets easily disenchanted within the first few message exchanges. It is sometimes hard to tell if the author on the other side of the screen is a real human or a bot. Why? Because an AI bot and a contemporary communicator have a lot in common: they utter very generic expressions that could be universally exploited. 

There is a sense of discomfort and suspicion that accompanies you during this digital quest. Most of the time text exchanges are so generic and predictable that you start questioning if there are any real people left within your geographic radius and within the Nation as a whole. Who creates those profiles? Are they AI-generated to simply boost user interactions and lure them into buying a monthly membership? But then how ethical it is to have naive users continuously interact with bots, building false hopes for them, and taking their time and money? 

Another disturbing aspect of online dating is interaction with actual users. In some cases, it could be simply dangerous, because there is no way for the system to check the user's reputation and criminal background. And as long as they provide sufficient information in a profile and pay for the services, they can interact with others freely. 

The idea of digital dating could have been exciting if there wasn't so much ambiguity and risks around it. There is no pleasure in exchanging empty and generic words with chatbots, or otherwise sketchy individuals. This is not to say that every real user is sketchy, but simply to indicate that there is a serious problem with language and communication and a predisposition to be deceived.

Multi-Tasking and The Digital All in a Healthy Society

 Originally the term multi-tasking had emerged in the 60s and was used to describe computers' ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously because it can, as it is a machine and not a human. 

It is hard to tell at what moment it all started, but with the computer's influence, the term multi-tasking was adopted by human resources and recruiters to describe human functions, completely dismissing the fact that the human brain is designed differently and by no means can it replicate computer capabilities.

When we want to describe a person who is effective in performing multiple tasks, it would be more honest to say that they can rapidly switch between their tasks and avoid errors. Multi-tasking is, therefore, not the same as rapid task switching, and the latter has its own implications. In order to be an effective "rapid task switcher", one must prioritize properly and minimize external distractions.

It appears that due to the machine and automation-driven environments that we are constantly exposed to and are an indivisible part of, our perception of what is anatomically possible and what's not is distorted. As a result of this serious distortion, oftentimes working adults are expected to demonstrate skills and mental and physical abilities that are incompatible with their own anatomy. 

When our body shows signs of exhaustion and the mind loses its capacity to function effectively simply because it needs some rest, good nutrition, and a change of activity, instead of accommodating those basic needs, we choose to be dismissive of them, playing along with the established professional norms and demands. The management supports these destructive trends and praises us for overperforming and overworking. 

Nowadays, it is nearly impossible to meet an employer who genuinely pays attention to a real work-life balance, demonstrating courtesy and asking a colleague: "How are you feeling today?", "How was your ride from home to work in this weather?", "Are you thirsty/hungry?", or, when inviting you to his office for a brief meeting: "Please have a seat", "Make yourself comfortable", and: "Are you thirsty? - have some water".

For many employers and business people, such courtesies may sound wild, but these small and timely gestures can go a long way in making a difference: our interactions, and as a result, life quality, will improve dramatically.

And what about self-care? How can working, career-driven adults betray themselves on a daily basis, systematically depriving their bodies of a good, nutritional breakfast or lunch because they are always in a hurry?  How can they allow their brain cells to explode from overthinking and stressing without mental breaks? 

It is simply destructive to regularly compare ourselves to machines and make it a goal to function like them to meet the perceived social, professional, and economic demands. We will never become machines even if we try very hard. The only logical outcome of such efforts is our eventual demise as a spiritual, sane, and healthy society. 

AI, Automation, and People-Focused Professions

 Every now and then I talk to AI enthusiasts who are very excited about the idea that every single human life aspect will be soon automated or AI-assisted due to far-reaching technological capabilities and advancements. It isn't merely about the fact that such a drastic change in lifestyle is just logically consequential and is therefore unavoidable, but also about the level of their unhidden euphoria about it. 

It is surprising and at the same time disappointing to see how some of the AI advocates turn a blind eye to the social aspect of these changes that so radically impact the architecture of our lives and penetrate it on a very personal level. The fact that some professions will become obsolete due to the introduction of AI and automated solutions is not an issue, on the contrary - it has many advantages as it will release a lot of human potential to allow it to focus on other important life aspects that may be very fulfilling and enriching. The main concern is the risk of devaluing people-focused professions that require emotional intelligence and a more intuitive and subjective kind of guidance and involvement. Some of such professions are: Social Workers, Behavioral Therapists, Clinical Psychiatrists, Mediators, Litigators, Lawyers, and perhaps there are some more that weren't mentioned here. 

To put individual destinies in the hands of AI isn't only eccentric but also irresponsible, because there is always a risk of errors in "judgment"; in the case of AI - error in computation. If something is computed inaccurately, such as professional advice or urgent instruction, someone's life can be destroyed to the core. 

With those considerations, some professions must be left alone and remain fully potent to perform their role in society. And AI functions within these professions must be introduced carefully and only to serve as a tool that helps people-focused professionals serve their authentic purpose.

Is "Digital Society" a Thing?

 During our Digital Society class discussion on what Society is and how it is connected to the digital world, some of us got carried away pondering over the true meaning of the expression "Digital Society". 

The argument that I really liked is how can society be digital if its property is physical by default, composed of physical beings, humans? 

To support this statement that was made by one of the participating students, I added that probably it'd be better to call it a Digitized Society, with "ed" at the end rather than "al". To describe a society in which the created content has been digitized and therefore extended into a digital platform.

Instinctually I want to use the term Digital to describe a time period, an Era, or an Age in which digital information transmittal has become a part of everyone's life. We live in a Digital Age. Just like our ancestors lived in other Eras and Ages:

• Iron Age: 1200 BCE - 500 CE
• Renaissance Era: 14th-17th centuries
• Enlightenment Era: 17th-19th centuries
• Industrial Era: 18th-20th centuries
• Digital Age: 20th century - present

How can we be a Digital Society when we are not virtual but physical beings? We may have a digital presence: an extension of our personal story, biography, and social footprints, but we do not physically migrate into the digital medium. We remain in a physical, tangible space where all of our senses work intact: smell, taste, sight, reflexes, and emotions.

There are some adjectives, however, that go well with the word Society and these are: 

• Ancient
• Contemporary
• Enlightened
• Modern

These are the properties that do not necessarily contradict our state of being, as breathing and feeling humans. We could, in fact, be ancient, contemporary, enlightened, or modern, and yet remain our own animated beings.

It appears that the degree of adventure and excitement that new, highly complex technological and computerized content brings into our lives, distracts us so much from our own candid, mental, and physical selves, that we've come to believe that we are an extension of the digital medium, rather than the latter being an extension of us.