> You take one line, attach some deeper meaning to it and then denigrate those who "misunderstand" a single phrase.

No, I read all of your comment and wished you had not written it at all because it is basically just noise.

> So, no. Your comment is BS - making computers invisible, if its such a deeper meaning that I missed -- explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing

To take your comment point-by-point:

> 1. "computers" HAVE disappeared; AKA ubiquitous surveillance is already here.

But does not necessarily have anything to do with pervasive computing, though, when mis-used can definitely be a factor. But it is perfectly possible to have ubiquitous surveillance even in the absence of computers, see the former SovBloc countries. So this does not at all follow.

What you are arguing against is 'the cloud' and the services built upon it, Facebook and Google versus systems at your command and under your control.

If you mix those two then you have something that I agree is problematic but this need not happen.

> 2. I dont want to see a bunch of people flailing their arms. I dont want a new crop of "lip readers" who are looking at the body movements of others and intercepting their actions intentions (imaging ML/AI/CV applied to watching a crowd of people and IDing all the apps/interactions/intentions they are performing)

I don't want that either. But again, the one does not follow from the other. It's a ridiculous exaggeration. Now, for sure there will be 'bad actors' who will attempt - and who might even succeed - at achieving any or even all of this.

But they do not need ubiquitous computing in order to achieve it, the stuff available today is more than powerful enough to do this.

> 3. Organic Humanism will be a thing. Fuck technology - I literally want to walk into Yosemite and not have a single digital thread connecting me to the outside world.

Some people implanting RFID markers in their bodies (which I consider just about as strange as tattoos or piercings, in other words I'm fine with other people doing it but I would never do it myself) does not translate into you not being able to walk into nature to 'disconnect'. I'm a borderline Luddite myself, don't have a smartphone, do not subscribe to Facebook or Whatsapp. I don't want my car to 'phone home' nor do I want my refrigerator to tell me what to eat or place orders on my behalf. Even so, I do not begrudge others that do want those things and I'd love to see a good chunk of RPF's 'There's plenty of room at the bottom' come to life.

For me the rule with devices is that if I own them they don't communicate unless I want them to and if that's not the case then I won't buy them.

> 4. Central control. "invisible computers" literally means that ALL power over human thought shall exist in the "cloud" -- where all control/tech/physicality is abstracted from any naive mind.

That's utter science fiction and unlikely to come to pass within the foreseeable future.

Again, I agree that control is the key and if this stuff is going to happen then I will do what I can to make sure that control remains with the ultimate beneficiary: the user. So no 'Nest' for me, and no 'Siri' or 'Ok, Google'.

> 5. Education flounders; Try teaching some kids about the state of the internet in 20 years when they have never seen a computer in physicality. They have only interacted (unknowingly, ubiquitously, and without their will 100% of their entire little lives) -- entering a FaceGoog.gov datacenter would literally be like Neo waking up in the Matrix vat of human sludge.

Ridiculous. Getting an education about anything has never been easier than it is today. Computers have never been more accessible than they are today. I had to save for two whole years in order to be able to buy a minimally capable system in the 80's. Today $35 and change will get you a Raspberry Pi that will run circles (and tight ones too) around that good old 6502 and it will allow you to write and run programs that I could only dream of back in the day.

Even your browser serves as a pretty powerful computing environment these days.

Getting hung up on the hardware aspect of computing is weird in a way, after all computing is operations on data, that's a totally abstract thing that it requires hardware at some level is nice and good but in the end it is the results that matter.

If you wanted to have a discussion at what the impact of this change will/would be then you missed an opportunity by filling it in with your wildest imagination set to 'dark' rather than something realistic and with a reasonable chance of actually happening.

So, in closing, you utterly missed the point and no matter how long your list would be I highly doubt it would be more connected to reality than the list you already gave.