That's not what was said. The line of comments was "free markets are not under attack" followed by "From this perspective, they are." There was no judgement passed. I don't find your response curious or otherwise insightful.
They have this power precisely because you have given up. Government power is derived from the consent of the goverened. Collective action does work and always will, but it needs to be coordinated. If enough people in the UK stopped going to work, they could affect change pretty quickly I reckon.
It's been discussed before but I'll go ahead and say it again. Any administration that was actually serious about cutting spending to benefit the American people would start with cutting unnecessary defense projects and large scale healthcare reform. Those categories take up the vast, vast majority of the budget. But instead, they cut the programs projecting benevolence to the world and protecting us from tuberculosis outbreaks because they were "full of marxists" and then proceeded to outline a horrifying plan for expansion that would certainly increase defense costs. There isn't actual logic here, it's based on subjective feelings and lies designed to appease voters and enrage them at the other side. God forbid there ever be any deep thought or nuance to anything.
It's challenging because one person's "politics" is another person's "my extended family is being actively slaughtered in the middle east, how can I think or talk about anything else." Is the person wrong for that? The line for what is and isn't politics is incredibly blurry and is almost always drawn on the side of whoever already has the most privilege
I'm obviously approaching this from an extremely biased perspective, but in the wake of seeing so many people around me helplessly complaining about recent negative changes in government, it's very comforting to see some people getting organized and trying to do something to help. In general, I hope that more people are spurred into action than ever to actually make a change in the world rather than just reposting conspiracy theories and prophecies of doom on social media, crying that no one is doing anything.
The power in question is the president's power over the executive branch of government, e.g. the department of Justice. If the president orders it, the department of Justice could choose to feign ignorance and simply not fine any offending parties under this law. Obviously this is an immense power that should be wielded with the utmost care but at this point I'm not sure anyone cares.
What checks remain to counter this power? Impeachment? Constitutional amendment? As I understand it, if the president chooses not to enforce a law, then the only real recourse Congress has is a massive escalation that requires an extremely high level of cooperation. I'm not sure it was ever intended for the executive branch to simply ignore the other two branches and unilaterally decide how to run things. Personally I think willfully refusing to enforce the law of the land should be an impeachable offense but I guess that's not how it works.
Sorry, Dang, that you have to deal with this. I definitely don't envy you. If this were written by anyone else I'm not sure it would make it to the front page.
That being said, if we're here, we're here. Paul Graham is defining wokeness as a form of performative moral superiority, so let's use that definition here. I think we can all agree that performance moral superiority is at the very least annoying, so wokeness sounds pretty bad and we should try to avoid it. So this leaves me very curious as to examples. Graham unhelpfully gives very few specific examples, but one he does give is the Bud Light controversy. This one is particularly interesting to me because I'm not sure that Bud Light ever did anything particularly priggish. As I understand it, all they did was sponsor a social media influencer who happened to be transgender and suddenly half of the country lost their minds? Mulvanney's transgender identity had nothing to do with her Bud Light advertisement. I cannot see any priggishness here. No one made any statements about how anyone else should speak or act, no one was removed from any position of power. But the right was outraged by this and Graham refers to it as wokeness despite it not matching his definition. I'll put the subtext away and just say what I'm thinking. I think Graham's wokeness is real and legitimately annoying. But I don't believe it's anywhere near the scale of problem he's claiming it is and most importantly I think he's using it as a sort of effigy for underlying leftist ideas of inclusion and diversity. Graham makes wokeness out to be just about moral pricks but not the underlying ideas, but then classifies the protests after George Floyd's death as wokeness. Similarly to the Bud Light example, I see no performance there. I think it's hard to argue that protests and riots are purely performative and not real actions designed to make change. So to me, as a reader, it feels like Graham is masking his distaste for liberal ideology behind an obviously agreeable distaste of prigs. I don't necessarily think he's even doing this consciously and I think he's projecting the frustration from threat he sees to his power by liberal ideology towards this particular target. I know the feeling. This post has been long enough but I want to at least mention that this is how I feel about a lot of propaganda (from every side, mind you). People use real problems as stand-ins for things they can't talk about and get unreasonably upset at what's on the surface, not a big problem. It's important to read critically and pay attention to your own feelings and the logic of the arguments you're reading, because at least for me, it's very easy to be manipulated into believing something that's nonsensical or inconsistent with your values.
This requires conscious choice and some discipline though. For the average person, content competes for attention on their behalf before their conscious brain kicks in. Social media uses cheap tricks like rage bait that your local book club just can't compete with. Yes, an emotionally healthy person with some free time who enjoyed books as a child (already a minority of people it seems due to many factors) may choose the book club, but the higher barrier of entry just keeps most people from ever considering it.
It's just so damn hard for any in-person activities to compete with instant gratification and addictive rage. In college in 2022, I was a member of several clubs with varying subjects and members. Every one of them struggled to get anyone to attend. The CS club hosted drone races and 3d printed model painting. The improv club had weekly themed meetings. The theater department hosted at least 1 large and 1 small show per semester and we couldn't even get people to sit in the audience. And this is college, where demands on participants' time are relatively lacking (compared to kids and a 9-5). I imagine a lot of social activities have failed to get members and then just ceased to exist as a result. Several of the clubs I was in no longer exist due to a lack of participants to take up leadership after my class graduated.
Don't even get me started on how people talk and talk about causes they admire on the internet but then never actually volunteer their time to make anything better.
I really think society has just fucked itself over by letting social media companies run rampant with our attention, feeding us lies and gossip that doesn't matter 24 hours later. I genuinely just don't know if most people can be conscious and disciplined enough to get themselves out of the trap. At the very least, it will take a few generations to develop new mores and standards and who knows what new tech will be around to ruin their lives by then. I find it hard to believe that anyone was ever hopeful about working in this industry.
You may not like hearing this, but the best thing you can do for him is be a supportive friend and try to make him happy when you get the time to. You are not an expert on brain cancer. You will not become an expert on brain cancer before he dies. You know who is an expert on brain cancer? His oncologist. I know grief is hard and you're motivated by your love for the people in your life, but there isn't some cheap hack that will fix this. Trust the experts to do their job and for the love of god don't take cancer advice from strangers on the internet. In the meantime, love your family, love your friends, love your life, and try to make others happy.
I wouldn't count Intel out in the long term, but it'll take quite a few generations for them to catch up and who knows what the market will be like by then
I wrote an emulator in Python in college and recently redesigned and rewrote it in rust. It was a pretty fulfilling experience. I spent several weeks writing a long program just to get data to sufficiently test performance. After all was said and done, my rust emulator still ran the program so fast I could barely get enough samples for a flame graph.
If anyone reading is working on a chip-8 emulator for the first time, a word of warning: for instructions that affect the vF register, be sure to check whether the register should be set before running the instruction but actually set it after. This is subtle but affects several popular roms.
In fairness, it's a minority, but there are quite a few of us who have problems killing and eating animals and increasingly so depending on the species.
The point is a bit exaggerated and reality is more nuanced, but as a general principle, I agree that simply giving a damn about what you're doing can often get you miles ahead of people who just show up for the paycheck.
> it’s even worse: redstone dust is, like, the only component that doesn’t introduce tick delays, but it’s very laggy, because no one at Mojang seems to know graph algorithms.
It's gotten much less laggy since the post OP linked to for info was posted, with many improvements in the last 3 years including one very recently. Mojang gets a lot of hate from every direction. It took them so long to make Redstone less laggy because every time they touch Redstone in any way, the community screams at them and any time they do anything other than introduce brand new features the community screams at them so it just wasn't worth it. Getting mad on the Internet and saying they don't know graph algorithms isn't helpful. Mojang has repeatedly hired some of the best and brightest minds in the Minecraft community to work for them (e.g. Panda4994, Kingbdogz, Gnembon) so they do have the technical expertise to do anything they want. What they don't have is infinite time/budget and it turns out that working on a 15 year old Java codebase and a massive multiplatform C++ app at the same time and trying to keep them in sync is really damn hard so can we please give them grace? I'm just tired of so much hate from every direction every second of the day. Can we please just say that Minecraft is awesome? Thanks
The one who did the interview and the ones who do the coding may not overlap, and as OP mentioned, they don't need to be particularly good. Even if they get fired after a few months, it's still a net win.
fwiw the price of tier 1 twitch subs will go up to $5.99 in July according to a recent email sent to all subscribers, so I suppose the figure goes up to $1.18 or something
Interesting for sure. My current setup is your basic nginx, fastcgi, php-fpm. I have some custom ngnix config though and I wouldn't want to have to switch web servers. I guess I could still use nginx as a reverse proxy and point it to this but then what's the point? I'll look into it for future projects where I really just need a simple php deployment, but for my needlessly complex project I'm already working on, I don't think it fits.
Knowing when you're at the limit of what you're able/willing to do and ducking out to go have a happy life strikes me as more mature, not less. Certainly he was a hobbyist and certainly he got lucky but what he did was still impressive for the time and choosing to step away is admirable imo
I think this is only the case on platforms that I don't use. Maybe that's why I don't use them, I'm not sure. I never made that conscious decision. Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat all only give me people I'm following on dedicated pages and I just don't use the other pages. I never liked Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok
There are a lot of podcasts out there and no good discoverability outside of large platforms. YouTube has some of the best discoverability out there, but YouTube viewers expect video. If you want to run a successful podcast in 2024, recording video and uploading it to YouTube is a must
The number of people/businesses that could use custom software if it were cheaper/easier to develop is nearly infinite. If software developers get more productive, demand will increase
Perhaps consider simply reading the description for an accurate summary.
From the description:
> Abstract: In this talk I’ll highlight several exciting trends in the field of AI and machine learning. Through a combination of improved algorithms and major efficiency improvements in ML-specialized hardware, we are now able to build much more capable, general purpose machine learning systems than ever before. As one example of this, I’ll give an overview of the Gemini family of multimodal models and their capabilities. These new models and approaches have dramatic implications for applying ML to many problems in the world, and I’ll highlight some of these applications in science, engineering, and health. This talk will present work done by many people at Google.
The ability to buy and sell used games is really nice. I can get a game that came out a year ago second hand for like $15-30 in some cases. Not being able to do that for digital exclusive games is really annoying and often means I just don't play them.
Does the cost of buying and reselling games for slightly less end up equaling out to the cost of a games subscription model? Maybe, but my concern is fragmentation. I definitely can't afford more than one game subscription so I don't like this trend.
In the US, it's mostly a network effect I think. It was the default on half of people's phones and it managed to be good enough over time (unlike sms defaults on Android) to stay entrenched.
Also, imagine this scenario from the perspective of a non-technical user:
You buy an expensive but high quality phone that's easy to use and has a great camera and great apps. Most of your friends have the same phone and everything works great with them. Then you try to talk to someone new but they have a phone that was probably cheaper and has a worse camera and looks like it's harder to use and full of ads. Every time they message you it turns off a bunch of your features and ruins group chats for everyone. Who are you going to blame, your phone manufacturer whose product seems to work great, or this guy with a phone so cheap and buggy that it breaks everyone else's?
Thus, non-technical iMessage users see no reason to go out of their way to use weird third party messengers. It's not their fault - it's the android users' faults for being cheap.
(For clarity, I am a hardcore android phone but I'm not delusional enough to think the average person will have a better experience on Android then iOS. I had to install fdroid and a custom launcher and a bunch of side loaded apps to get a decent experience. The average person doesn't and arguably shouldn't need to know about all that)