At the beginning of Conde Nast's article, I was frustrated and annoyed solely because using extreme, wordy, verbiage to sound smarter than you are is a pet peeve of mine. (That was a little harsh but, I don't know how else to word it. Haha.) I had to read the first paragraph at least three times in order to figure out that it essentially said that people would take their dreams that they had and either write them down or they would make art out of it. (At least I think that's what it meant. If I am wrong then I will be the biggest idiot in the world.) I also had conflicting thoughts when Nast wrote about people multitasking. One of the examples that he gave was someone is talking to someone on the phone while surfing the Internet at the same time. I think it depends on the situation for that to be a negative thing or put in Nast's negative context. Some people have to do that for their occupation while others may need to do research for what they are talking about with the person on the other end of the line. It all depends on the backstory, in my opinion. I agreed with Nast on two separate occasions throughout the entirety of the article. The first was that we are half-asleep and half-awake while we are on the Internet and that the feeling of "derive" (The feeling of time has passed but you don't know how long exactly and you are kind of sleepy all the while trying to remember where you are.) is very real. I experience it more when I fall asleep in class or take a nap in the middle of the day but it is very interesting to realize that I have that exact same feeling after I am on social media for an extended period of time. Nast's experiment of him and a group of students sitting and surfing the Internet for three hours every day of the week doesn't seem too bad if you ask me. I would sign up for that course so quickly. I couldn't even imagine the amount of YouTube videos I could watch during that time period. In conclusion, I am slightly confused about whether or not Nast approves or is opposed to the Internet. There are hints throughout the article that says he is ("...they've been spending in front of their screens as engaged and creative, I'll have moved them in the right direction.) and parts where it seems that he isn't (He compares our technological use to sleepwalking and he states, "We are awash in a new, electronic, collective unconscious...). To me, he is basically trying to get his students to see how deep you can get sucked into the Internet negatively. If you don't look at art or if you don't do something relatively creative after the session then the course was a failure.