Final Blog Post

 My Relationship with Technology

Despite its ongoing presence, technology has become a seamless part of our everyday lives, frequently going unnoticed. Technology simplifies our daily lives, from the smart devices we use for communication to the alarms that wake us up. It controls the supply chains that deliver our groceries, runs the traffic lights on our commute, and makes online banking, entertainment, and education possible. Even our household products, such as washing machines, refrigerators, and thermostats, frequently have intelligent functions built in that operate silently in the background. We depend on technology constantly without even recognizing it, making it an invisible yet essential part of modern society.

Innovation and advancement are fueled by technology, which enhances sectors including business, education, and healthcare. It facilitates quicker communication, simplifies intricate procedures, and improves information accessibility. But social media, a particular aspect of technology, is problematic because it may spread false information, lead to unhealthy habits, and create unreasonable expectations. Social media frequently exacerbates societal problems like loneliness and divisiveness, in contrast to more general technology improvements that seek to address problems. To overcome these obstacles, digital platforms must be used carefully and regulated to maximize their advantages while avoiding their drawbacks.

Technology has transformed the way we communicate. Even though it definitely has its benefits, there are some negatives. People don't interact the way they used to. Nowadays you add a random person on snapchat and start talking to them on the phone instead of having a real interaction with them in person. It would be so much nicer to meet someone in person and get to know them rather than over the phone. They could be lying over the phone and in person, you get to hear their voice and get to know all their mannerisms. Over the phone you just get to ask random questions that they could possibly lie about.

Technology has also in my opinion made everyone rude. It's so much easier to say something negative behind a screen rather than in person because you're not saying it to their face. Now your phone can be a distraction when you're at an event, you might not socialize as much because you would rather be on your phone. This is a big problem in my opinion because in the real world you need to be outgoing if you ever want to be successful. You need to learn how to walk up to someone and strike up a conversation with them. You're never going to learn how to do that if you are always on your phone hiding behind your screen.

I have a complex and thankful relationship with technology. I genuinely value how it improves our lives by facilitating communication, giving us access to a wealth of knowledge, and making daily chores easier. I use technology as a tool and appreciate its vast possibilities. On the other hand, I am aware of how readily social media can be abused or overused. The productivity and connections that technology is supposed to promote are frequently undermined by the simple temptation to engage in constant browsing, comparison, or diversion. I appreciate what technology has to offer, but I'm also aware that if social media isn't used carefully, it may cloud its beneficial effects

EOTO REAX #2

Tiktok Bans

I unfortunately use TikTok every single day without fail. I spend so much of my time on the app, when I could be studying or doing something else that is a lot more productive. TikTok's video clips have captured the attention of millions of people worldwide, making it an entertainment powerhouse. Despite its widespread use, proposals for TikTok bans have gathered momentum in a number of nations due to worries about privacy, threats to national security, and the app's negative effects on mental health. While experts worry about the app's effects on attention spans and general well-being, governments claim that its data-collection methods and possible connections to foreign groups create a security risk.

TikTok provides consumers with an apparently limitless supply of creativity, connection, and enjoyment. But there is a price for this. The algorithm of the program is meant to optimize user involvement, which frequently results in hours of pointless scrolling. Addiction, anxiety, and problems with self-esteem can all be increased by this compulsive use. Due to frequent comparisons with carefully chosen, often fictitious content, studies indicate that excessive use of social media, especially TikTok, can interfere with sleep cycles and worsen feelings of not being enough.

TikTok bans may be good for our brains and general wellness. Restricting access would allow people to spend more time offline, rediscover interests, or recover hours lost to scrolling. People may be able to concentrate more intently on relationships and tasks if TikTok is removed since it may also lessen the steady stream of stimuli that breaks attention spans.

But our reliance on TikTok exposes a more basic social urge for escape and connection. These cravings might just be diverted elsewhere if the app is banned, but they won't be eliminated. Finding better digital practices and platforms that enhance rather than diminish lives is the difficult part. Although there is no denying TikTok's widespread attraction, releasing ourselves from its inescapable hold could be a start for a more balanced and mindful lifestyle.

Blog Post 10: Antiwar

 American antiwar opinion has long been expressed on a variety of platforms, with websites such as Antiwar.com and The American Conservative directing the effort to encourage a critical analysis of U.S. military engagements. These are vital venues for anyone looking for a different take on US foreign policy; they are frequently critical of the mainstream media's endorsement of military action.

Antiwar.com criticizes US engagement in international conflicts. It draws attention to the human, financial, and political consequences of war, emphasizing how conflicts are frequently fought in the name of safeguarding democracy but ultimately serve the interests of powerful businesses and individuals. The website offers essential insights into how U.S. foreign policy decisions can result in needless murder and destabilization, along with daily updates on worldwide conflicts. Antiwar.com uses in-depth articles to highlight the fact that military interventions frequently result in a legacy of destruction, both domestically and internationally, and rarely lead to long-term solutions.

In similar fashion, The American Conservative takes a conservative, non-interventionist approach to antiwar speech. It highlights the need for U.S. foreign policy to put the interests of the nation first and refrain from drawing the nation into expensive, protracted wars. The website criticizes administrations of both parties for continuing the cycle of interventionism, claiming that these conflicts frequently cause more harm than benefit by destabilizing areas and depleting American resources. The American Conservative challenges the moral and economic arguments for war, appealing to a group of people who respect fiscal discipline, limited government, and constitutional ideals.

The aim of both websites is to question the current militarily interventionist status quo. Though The American Conservative is based in traditional conservatism and Antiwar.com is more libertarian in viewpoint, both sites agree that the United States needs to reevaluate its role as the world's police force. They demand a more circumspect, deliberate foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy, steers clear of pointless confrontations, and eventually upholds peace

Blog Post 9: EOTO 2 Net Neutrality

 What is Net Neutrality?

All information on the internet should be equally accessible. Net neutrality and your internet service provide (ISP) influences what you see and how quickly you see it. When you use the internet you need an ISP to connect you to that specific content. ISPs handle all data equally, regardless of the source, net neutrality assures that everyone has equal access to internet information. Users should be able to browse freely and not be discriminated against from particular websites or content. In the absence of net neutrality, ISPs might be able to charge websites like Netflix and YouTube additional fees in order to guarantee fast loading times, which they might then pass along to customers in the form of higher subscription charges.

Some say that net neutrality may unintentionally restrict industries by requiring this equality across all web traffic. ISP’s cannot intentionally slow down the internet speed for certain services or applications. For example, they shouldn't be allowed to make video streaming services run slower to favor their own video service.Others claim that by taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach, ISPs are unable to provide these data-intensive services with faster lanes, which could enhance performance for both consumers and providers.

ISPs are required by the net neutrality principle to handle all online traffic equally, without giving preference to any particular users, websites, or content. ISPs are prohibited from blocking access to specific websites, limiting connection speeds for specific websites, or charging businesses and consumers for speedier service (prioritization) through the use of so-called "internet fast lanes." Net neutrality encourages a fair and open internet where consumers can freely access content without intervention from ISPs by guaranteeing equal treatment of data.

The internet might split up without net neutrality, with internet service providers (ISPs) controlling access and speed. While smaller sites, startups, or those unable to pay may be locked in "slow lanes," taking much longer to load, popular websites or services that can afford to pay ISPs for "fast lanes" would load quickly. ISPs may even limit users' options by blocking or restricting access to particular websites or applications. An ISP may favor the speed of a streaming service like Netflix when collaborating with it, for instance, and slow down or restrict other services like Hulu. As a result, there would be an unfair playing field where the largest corporations would benefit and users would not have the same freedom to access the internet. It might also discourage innovation because newly launched, smaller websites would not be able to compete on an internet dominated by ISPs and big businesses

The idea of net neutrality and free speech are closely related since an open and varied internet depends on the free and unrestricted flow of information. The principle of net neutrality guarantees that internet service providers (ISPs) do not play the role of gatekeepers, dictating which information customers can access and at what speed. In the absence of net neutrality, internet service providers could control which websites, services, or opinions are available and visible by restricting, blocking, or charging more for access. Due to ISPs' ability to control what thoughts and viewpoints are more widely disseminated or heard, this would have a significant negative influence on free expression.

Blog Post 8: Diffusion of Bluetooth

Innovators

Innovators, or people who are constantly looking for cutting-edge technologies, even if they come with a lot of uncertainty, were the first group to adopt Bluetooth technology. These were mostly IT firms, developers, and engineers who were interested in short-range wireless technology. Bluetooth was developed by the Swedish telecommunications corporation Ericsson in the late 1990s to provide a standard for wireless communication between devices. Since the technology was still in its early stages and had limited commercial applications, the possible use cases were still experimental. The idea of working with connections between gadgets and enhancing communication drew innovators in.

Early Adopters

Early adopters were the first customers to recognize Bluetooth's usefulness and start embracing it, following the pioneers. These were frequently opinion leaders, tech-savvy professionals, or companies looking to use Bluetooth to increase convenience and efficiency. They began utilizing Bluetooth in the early 2000s for syncing devices such as laptops and phones, hands-free mobile phone accessories, and the first wireless headsets. They realized that by eliminating wires and improving communication between gadgets, Bluetooth may simplify people's lives. Their impact paved the door for wider adoption of the technology by generating interest about it.

Early Majority

These are the more cautious adopters that hold off on adopting a technology until it has demonstrated its dependability and usefulness. With Bluetooth integrated into more and more consumer electronics, laptops, automobiles, and mobile phones by the mid-2000s, the technology has gained widespread use. This group caught on to Bluetooth because of its useful features, like wireless file transfers and wireless speaker connections. The early majority was persuaded of the technology's efficacy and simplicity as it become more commonplace, particularly as Bluetooth devices got simpler to pair and use on a daily basis.

Late Majority

The late majority usually embraces technology later in life, usually after it has become widely accepted. This group is more hesitant to adopt new technologies and waits to do so until the majority of their peers have done so. This happened to Bluetooth in the late 2000s, when almost all consumer electronics—including cars, headphones, cellphones, and home audio systems—came equipped with wireless technology. Bluetooth was a standard feature on most gadgets and was no longer considered a premium or cutting-edge technology. This group embraced Bluetooth primarily because it became harder to locate gadgets without it, and the technology had shown to be dependable, reasonably priced, and user-friendly.

Laggards

Laggards are the last group to adopt new technologies, usually due to their resistance to change or preference for more traditional, established solutions. For Bluetooth, laggards might have held on to wired devices for as long as possible, only embracing wireless technology when it became necessary, like when major manufacturers removed headphone connectors from smartphones (e.g., Apple’s choice in 2016). By now, Bluetooth was more of a need than an option, and those who were lagging behind embraced it since there weren't many good substitutes available. Even so, they might only utilize it grudgingly, driven more by need than by enthusiasm for wireless connectivity's advantages.

Blog Post 7: Age of AI

 Artificial Intelligence has grown rapidly in the last few years. Although it has its benefits I feel like it does frighten some people with how "smart" it is. I feel as though AI has just as many negatives it does positives. In the video they talked about self driving cars which sounded like a disaster waiting to happen. There was a scientist that said he had "no doubt of the inevitability of autonomous vehicles." I cannot imagine driving on the road and I look over and I see a self driving truck. It could malfunction at any moment because nothing is absolutely flawless. If that happens I do not think I would want to ever be on the road because there is too much room for error. 

AI has its bad sides but what they researched and found out about how it can help detect breast cancer is extraordinary. AI is said to "change the face of breast cancer." As of now 40,000 in the United States alone die from breast cancer. We think about breast cancer as something that cannot be stopped. But in reality if you catch it early enough you can stop it and go into recession and live a long healthy life. A patient had her scans brought to researchers and they think that they could have identified the breast cancer as early as two years before she was officially diagnosed. That is an incredible improvement that could help millions of people around the world. The new AI technology can help predict what surgeries they need instead of putting them through unnecessary procedures and putting even more stress on their bodies. They use the technology to determine if the have cancer now or if they will in five years. Its incredible to think that technology can do all of this and how fast its growing. 

Blog Post 6: EOTO Reaction

One technology that interested me during the presentations was the radio. I researched bluetooth for my technology and it would not have been possible without the invention of the radio so I was interested in how the radio came about. The radio was invented in 1899 by Guglielmo Marconi but the first broadcast was in 1906. Marconi came up with the idea while experimenting in his parents attic and called it "the wireless telegraph." In 1901 Marconi transmitted the first signal to cross the Atlantic from Europe to America. The radio was a complete game changer in the best way possible. The invention of the radio took off into one of the most popular inventions. It completely revolutionized our lives through communication and entertainment. This way people were able to listen to sports games on their way to work in the car or at the office. They could follow the daily news while making their morning coffee. The radio made it so easy to get news because you could listen almost anywhere you wanted to.

By the 1920's radio broadcasting was incredibly popular. Families would gather around to listen to sports games, entertainment and political debates. The radio played a big role in politics because people would be listening all the time so politics used that to their advantage to sway the public opinion. Another way the radio revolutionized our world was during WWII communication was often done through the radio. It was practical and a quick way to get in touch with each other. In the 1950's they created smaller and more affordable radios because before it was so new and expensive that everyone wanted one but not everyone could afford one. By this time almost everyone had one and took it everywhere they went. Today radio continues to evolve through podcasting and much more. Podcasters are very popular now because you get to hear other people perspectives on certain issues.