Let’s not kid ourselves: the human mind’s an imaginative bit of kit, but it’s no Turing-complete von Neumann machine (a.k.a a computer). And that’s hardly the first tech comparison to ever be made – not even a hundred years ago, Freud’s metaphor of choice was the steam engine; Descartes’ famous ‘broken clock’ model gained prominence during the industrial revolution, and quickly overtook the four humours as the go-to heuristic for assessing bodily health (for better AND for worse).

Today’s comparisons to computers didn’t come from nowhere. They’ve augmented our ability to access and process information on a scale no technology, to my knowledge, has done before. They are, as Tiago Forte affectionately described in the title of his 2022 book, a ‘second brain.’ A NYT article from 15 years ago takes this backported comparison to its limit – Americans consume up to 34GBs of data *every day*:

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/10data.html

Whatever that 34 gigs looks like, Homo sapiens hasn’t physically changed much. That number applies to us today as much as it did to those alive 15, 150, or 150,000 years ago. If nothing else, it is a statement that says there’s only so much we can manage in one day. What has changed are the computers we use*, the volume of information we have access to, and the speeds at which we can access it.

Now, more than ever, it pays to have a system not just for curating the links you come across online, but also makes them easy to access, process, and create something new of it. That’s a big ask, and no-one can give you an instruction manual on how to do this, least of all *me:*

https://brologue.net/2023/11/03/prologue/

https://brologue.net/2023/11/04/zettelkasten-an-antidote-for-boring-notes/

https://brologue.net/2023/12/26/my-spines-as-stiff-as-a-prosthetic-leg/

My method is a coalition of tech-based solutions (blogging, Zettelkasten, Obsidian) as well as good ol’ fashioned pen and paper (a journal). It’s an ad-hoc attempt at being more deliberate about keeping the words coming; three children in a trenchcoat who don’t always agree who’s on top.

If my thoughts on blog posts and newsletters should go anywhere, it should first be the journal; then, later, they go into the Zettel for a second pass in literature notes, and perhaps some permanent notes linking back to past notes I think are relevant; sooner or later, you get one Brologue.

Today’s the first day I try this. Rather than spend days on a longform essay, I decided this next post would be a linkblogging lightning round, to get a feel on how this method might work for me. It turns out this post ended up long, regardless…

Since I brought him up, I revisited Doctorow’s takes on the recent antitrust ruling against #Google. It is now, undeniably, a #monopoly:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/07/revealed-preferences/

This is a *seismic* legal rumbling, on the scale of the rulings that led to the break-ups of Standard Oil and Ma Bell. Across the world, antitrust has been reinvigorated, and lawmakers have enforced competition laws more times in the past four years than the last *forty.*

Now, were this a work of fiction, this might be where the story ends and we all live happily ever after. But this is real life, and in real life, those with the authority now have to decide what happens to Google’s ad-tech #monopoly. I share the view that it would be better if #Google – all of Big Tech – were broken up into smaller companies, incentivised by competition, and unable to gain the footholds that allowed their current forms from becoming too big to fail, jail, and care.

An acquaintance who I conversed with when the story broke also shares this view. And at the same time, they don’t. Sure, break up #Amazon, and *sure,* break up #Meta. But Google? Google’s products – its ad-tech stack, its search engine, and YouTube – are integral to not just how the web’s financed, but how it functions. You can’t just break up #Google – it’s exceptional. And if you do, us end-users downstream will suffer.