Y'see, I don't think the writer "really" cares what the devices look like. I think the article attempts to hide a very serious, terrified, heart-felt objection to the f*ing horror of the Western military-industrial complex' relentless pseudo-enslavement of those it claims to protect from those it funds/equips to attack them, in some drivel about 80s futurism and design aesthetic. For that, I find it rather clever. That you (and several others commenting here) missed its point suggests it did its intended job quite well (as I see it).
I think the article attempts to hide a very serious, terrified, heart-felt objection to the f-ing horror of the Western military-industrial complex' relentless pseudo-enslavement
I sorta skimmed over that bit because it seemed like a throwaway remark. It's not actually thinking about how and why the material consumption culture exists, just a statement about one of the purposes it serves him. So I didn't give it a second thought.
Is there anything particularly special about militarism that means people are looking to fill the void in their souls should choose consumer products designed to broadcast an identity? Could such consumption exist without the military dystopia the author paints? Is there another frantic activity that could distract us from the dystopia he posits we use tech as an escape from?
Or am I a just a philistine that can't appreciate why jumping on a 2-year upgrade train for more computing power in a network bound device is the perfectly remedy? Crafted exactly to distract me from the horrors of contemplating the intractable problems in the Middle East. Has product evolution found existential answers that climbing a mountain at daybreak never possibly could?
There's something terrifying about this, yes. But the article doesn't "attempt" to hide it's authors terror, it simply fails to verbalize it – if that's the authors underlying worry.
