Travel and the algorithmic trap

Re:Travel and the algorithmic trap by ghaff on Friday November 02, 2018 @05:21PM (#18366884)

>Avoiding algorithms doesn’t apply to traveling in beautiful places. I depend on algorithms in expansive natural parks. When I’m in Patagonia, I want to do the best hike. In Alaska, I was to see the prettiest glacier. The focus is on nature, not people.

I actually disagree with this (in part).

I get what he's saying. Why wouldn't you go to some objective best in terms of scenic beauty?

But I'd argue that, at least in some cases, there are almost as good locations that are far less crowded that may make for reasonable alternatives all things considered. US National Parks tend to be National Parks for a reason and they are usually worth visiting. But, in many cases, there are nearby Wilderness Areas and National Forests that have many of the same virtues with a fraction of the people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Travel and the algorithmic trap by davidperell on Monday November 05, 2018 @01:21PM (#18384573)

Hey this is David, the guy who wrote the piece. This is an excellent point.

I've observed the same thing with hikes in Yosemite. Many of the best hikes are off the beaten path. With that said, I stand by my general point. I don't think the Algorithmic Trap applies to nature quite as much.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback and thank you for reading.

[ Parent | on HN ]