• AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Historians don’t talk about “good” or “bad” unless there’s some unambiguous metric within the historical context.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Nah—see Goodhart’s law (“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”).

        As soon as Santa published his lists, people would start figuring out ways to game it.

        • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 days ago

          This is so true.

          When I worked at a cell phone store, we had an accessory take rate (ATR) target. The goal was to sell 3-5 accessories for every phone sold. (The accessories had much more profit. Compared to the phones that were sold at a loss with a contract) We would sling cheap screen protectors and clearance items that were only a few bucks to crank that number up without actually getting the customers to spend more money.

          They caught on and changed it to Accessory revenue per phone, and suddenly the cheap junk quit moving and we’d only have to get one person per day to buy a Bluetooth speaker to hit target.

        • guy@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Maybe not, it’s a thing within global governance. You whip out the HDI or Gini coefficient and suddenly countries scramble to increase in its rankings

  • sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Anyone with a baseline education in history knows “good old days” is proponganda used by almost every bad actor that ever existed

  • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I don’t know anyone who talks about the good old days.

    My great grandparents didn’t. My 90 year old parents don’t.

    They’ve all seen some shit us “youngin’s” simply can’t fathom.

    I had to read Studs Terkel’s “Hard Times” before I had a clue how shockingly hard life was before the mid-20th century, and how easy us born after that have it.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      Broadly speaking this is probably true. In a smaller context, though, there are tons of counter examples. The internet for example, from just 10 years ago, was unquestionably better. AI slop, bots, enshitification, social media and browser monoculture…

      The anti science trend of MAGA over the last few years…

      Etc. Regression does happen, and we should not take things for granted.

      • bufalo1973@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Internet was different, not better. Don’t you remember the browsers with 30 “search bars”? The viruses infecting computers by just connecting to internet? The slow speeds?

        • lastweakness@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          “10 years ago” would mean the year is 2015. By then, there were no 30 search bars, generally no viruses just by connecting to the internet and speeds were also acceptable or more than acceptable. And 2015 was unquestionably a better time for the internet.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Bizarre reading comments on lemmy every day that our times are so miserable and this is “the end”. I get it if you’re young and lack perspective, totally natural, but did no one have a good history teacher?

    • db2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 days ago

      But it’s always about something specific, they know too much to ever say an “era” was objectively good.

    • zout@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’m Dutch, so we are tough about the Dutch golden age, which spans about the seventeenth century. Trade science and art were at a high point back then, but looking deeper it turns out the life expectancy for common people was lower than in the surrounding countries. The wealth was all concentrated in the Holland province(s), which explains why the Netherlands is commonly referred as Holland in other countries. Another thing was the schism between catholics and Calvinists, which meant Catholic cities didn’t benefit at all from the golden age. It also wasn’t benificial to the 1.7 million people who were enslaved by the Dutch.

      So all in all, the Dutch golden age was very much golden for the merchants and aristocrats of cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Leiden or Haarlem, and for the protestant ministers. For the rest, of you didn’t live near these cities you probably were dirt poor.

  • Melobol@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’s because they’re way more aware of the drawbacks of certain eras.
    Slavery, racism, inequality, lack of resources, lack of education, lack of clean water, how many of your children will make it to adulthood, famine, floods, lack of roads…
    Every “good old day” was worse in some aspects.