Michael 1974 says it's another anti-digital thread. I see his point. At the same time, since the photographer of the series in question had no intrinsic value in any of the shots, they were bound to be mundane. A piece of film costs money, and making a print takes time and money. Clicking a digital camera and posting it with no other mechanics or expense whatsoever is a recipe for pointless "images", which is all they are--just "images". Our lives are pelted with this now. Ho hum.
When you get in the darkroom and start printing, you naturally cull your negatives to make a print that looks like something. This stuff looks like somebody who just shot everything and called it "street photography". I bet he didn't actually print any of it onto a piece of paper..