> Even our brains betray us, falling for the dopamine rushes expertly assembled by the exploiters.

I had this discussion with other people who deleted their account at some website that can be considered "social media" in a broader sense. They told me that the reason why they deleted their accounts was that they realized that these bursts of dopamine rush that they got from the respective site was not good for them.

I, on the other hand, have never felt this kind of dopamine rush, even though I was a likely even more active user on the respective site. My reason for really wanting to delete my whole account was "purely logical" (I hated a lot of decisions that the respective company made).

What I want to tell with this story is that I thus see strong evidence that the "sensitivity" of people for dopamine rushes from websites/games varies a lot between people (and I am very likely one who is at least "mostly" immune to them).

Really: if I had to name one thing that gives me dopamine rushes that are so much more intense (I would say: "multiple magnitudes more intense") than any dopamine rush that I got from any social media site that I visited, then I would say "understanding deep mathematical proofs and strongly simplifying them" (but I agree that these dopamine rushes are earned much more toughly :-) ).

> the Leidensdruck, i.e. the degree of suffering

A literal translation (the pressure of suffering) sounds more meaningful to me.

Or certain pagers.

Gold point! But, the real world is so far gone by now that fully GPLed computing isnt realistic right now. I would first try to push for more users of non corporate OSes for the beginning, let's say more /e/ more lineage more graphene OS users. And maybe cool alternatives to Maps applications like OSMand

For all his idiosyncratic traits, Stallman was remarkably prescient about many things.

Anti-personnel computers also do exactly what they're intended to do. The interests of the subject are not considered a priority, just like with mines.

> otherwise why would the user even get them?

Why does a moth fly into a flame?

Where in this do you see the connection to worldly, scientific, knowledge?

At the contrary, to me the term evoked exactly what the author meant. And after the series of detonations of the communication devices in Lebanon some time ago, the analogy with anti-personnel mines takes an even more concrete and sinister meaning.

> Anti-personnel mines do exactly what they are intended to do. These devices/software do something against the interests of the user in the process of doing something the user actually wants

Actually, I think you got it backwards: Anti-personnel mines are highly problematic especially when they are not needed anymore. They often linger in the ground for extended times after a conflict and are a cause of death and injuries in civilians, who just want to live their lives. Contrary to this, anti-personnel computing is problematic in the times when civilians are incentivized to use it.

This is because you got the "user" part slightly wrong. The real users of your smartphone are countless ads companies, media giants or even some government services.

Thinking of the complex systems terms of "coarse-graining" (moving up into higher level systems/astronomical/above scale) and "fine-graining" (moving down into human/biological/below levels).

Utility of anti-personnel mines is at system level of state war (no human-level participant meaningfully "wants" its effect on another human).

Utility of anti-personnel computing is the same -- compute resources used to benefit of system, but to detriment of human actor below.

The difference is we don't equally understand the battle damage we take to our minds the way we understand battle damage to our biology. This might change though

EDIT: but yes, there are some differences thru this lens that make the metaphor a bit strained