I'm aware.
1,382 karma · joined August 15, 2022
But I would use it to get up 30 minutes early to play NES before school. My mother would make me go to bed at a specific time, but if I was working on a particularly hard spot in a game I'd tell myself to get up 30 minutes earlier and spend that time playing.
I also used to lucid dream very frequently. I'd recognize it as lucid dreaming and actually start manipulating the dream. What's always been interesting to me is that dreams have rules to them, so even manipulating them there are limits. Sometimes I could fly freely, sometimes I could barely get off the ground.
Also, past a certain point in my life I completely stopped having nightmares. A nightmare has a "feel" to it. Even if it starts off pleasant I recognize that feel and simply step out of it.
---
So, we may not have an explanation for, but it absolutely happens.
And if I'm being truthful, I struggle with evolution a bit. It's a bit like life. I understand how life could have eventually evolved to where we're at. But how did life _start_?
Any specific mechanism is explained as having evolved, but if so, how did it _start_?
For example, there's an HN thread explaining why bees die after they sting and why it's acceptable from a colony perspective. What put bee's on _that_ specific evolutionary track? How did it _start_?
I think a lot of people are like myself, there's a level of blind faith put into evolution. We obviously have witnessed it happening so we know it does happen, but there are so many things we can't explain for sure that forces us to have blind faith it happened via _purely_ evolutionary forces. like ... what if we find out some super advanced alien civilization seeded earth with life and managed it in some way, helping shape things. It would kind of explain a lot.
And so I continue to have blind faith that even if we don't have a concrete explanation for many of the things we see it happened via evolution, but I also understand the skepticism some people have for evolution being the sole explanation.
I think the article has a point, but is overselling it as bigger than it actually is.
there are almost always quirks, but the biggest issue tends to be when bridging the gap between vim and the GUI itself, particularly around the modality of vim vs graphical autocomplete.
If you're less experienced as a vim user these emulators are probably perfectly fine, but as someone who has been using vim for something like 20+ years, they _always_ feel just off enough that I either just go back to vim or edit the way the editor originally intended.
If you're going to try and bring me to task, atleast be accurate.
Perhaps it just manifests itself differently, but things like I've always preferred PHP to RoR because the PHP community is so much more practical and "gett'er done" mentality.
For me it's about knowing I've done good work. I don't need external affirmation, it's about _ME_ knowing I've done good work.
I had a good friend tell an allegory about a bricklayer who refused to build a porch for a house that was run down and when asked why the brick layer said he would not be proud of showing the work to his son.
I once built and maintained a system over a 5 year period that after the first 6 months never went down or stopped working unless external dependencies it relied on went down (think mail server going down causing emails to be unsent). It wasn't a simple system either, it deployed across multiple data centers around the world.
I'm quite proud of that work, what I'm most proud of is that no one ever went to work worried that system may prevent them from doing their job. I'm not saying it was completely bug free at all times, new features are always a risk, but it damned well did the core work day and day out and came to be something most employees of the company relied on every single day. That company was sold about 6 months after I left and the owner told me the system I built was one of the things they wanted access to.
I left my last job because their systems were complete and utter shit and the person who originally wrote them wielded enough power that he actively prevented us from fixing it. My problem wasn't the state of the system, my problem was being told I have to work with it like that without being able to improve it. Just to give you an idea, this guy once told me he had been doing it for 20 years and never needed to test on real data. Which is bullshit, when he did it he had access to everything, including production. I left because I'm not willing to not be able to improve a system that needs it that badly.
Long story short, I don't agree with this person description of what a passionate programmer cares about, at all. It feels like a caricature to me. But the amount of times I've seen complete and utter shit pushed as "it doesn't matter" is too high. system stability absolutely matters.
The argument you're trying to formulate here is that being uninvited as a speaker at the grammy's isn't a big deal because the person was able to give their speech somewhere else in front of a completely different audience eventually. That's not how that works, the talk he was uninvited from is considered an honor in his profession.
Then you try to imply he benefited from it, so why is everyone opposed to it? That's akin to arguing that the reasons for naming a boy Sue is valid parenting advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s
2:26 timestamp
listen to the end to understand the point fully.
per the link about naming, I'm not surprised you misunderstood what Feynman was saying, but that's not my problem.
Think about it like this.
The chances of dying in a vehicle wreck is very small. But those who have died in them probably would have preferred finding an alternative means to get to their destination.
If someone doesn't want to get a vaccine for fear they'll become a statistic, that's perfectly valid.
The answer to the question doesn't actually matter, not to you, and not to me. It's a ploy to try and confound the conversation. If you and the other poster really feel it needs to be defined, then define cancelled as "the thing that happened to Dorian Abbot". boom, you're done. It now has a definition, tautological, but valid nonetheless.
The thing that should be getting discussed is whether or not what happened to him should have happened to him. And the answer is no, it shouldn't happen to anyone.
And now I'm going to leave you with an observation by Richard Feynman.
And I agree with your last point, it was the other thing that was bothering me by it. What exactly is actionable here, to me it's just normal wear and tear.
There may be times when it's worth the cost, but otherwise just hang it on the global state and move on with your life.
It has a name and using that name allows for more succinct communication. It's also a way for those who are unfamiliar with the paradox of tolerance to realize it's a thing so they can look further into it if they so choose.
---
For the rest, it's just a lot of rationalization for why you think you should be able to prevent people from saying things. And you try to hang it on the paradox of tolerance as a justification.
But it's not really, the lesson from the paradox of tolerance isn't that the tolerant must become absolutely intolerant to protect themselves, it's that they cannot be absolutely tolerant.
The line where intolerance needs to kick in for protection shouldn't be "someone said a thing", but should instead be "someone did a thing". Those like yourself who try to use the paradox of tolerance to rationalize your views are treating tolerance/intolerance as a binary rather than a spectrum.
And finally,
I'm a minority myself and have been called racial epithets. I remember the KKK coming into a nearby town and holding a rally back in the 90's. People were pissed off, but even then I defended their right to have the rally. My recommendation to everyone was just don't go. Imagine if they held a KKK rally and no one showed up, how hilarious would that be?
I would be no more ok with minorities attacking KKK members than I would be with KKK members attacking minorities. There's an equilibrium and fairness there that doesn't exist with words. If it's not ok for KKK members to tell a black person they're inferior, is it not ok for a black person to tell a KKK member they're inferior?
This obviously won't convince you as you're not thinking rationally, but that doesn't make the above any less true.
The rest of your post is just trashy thinking. If you believe the ratio of men to women is not due to personal choice, that's a claim YOU need to back up. I don't have to back up the assumption that it's personal choice, especially against someone who is, when you boil it all down, saying that it _IS_ personal choice, but that they were manipulated into that personal choice.
Where is all the angst over the lack of female loggers?
They went for the other one, that sure showed me! No mental gymnastics here folks, just good ole fashioned awesome-sauceness.
---
or how about no, I reject it just as I said I would.
"expression is always about stuff".
Now go on, try to show that I'm wrong. I've both said something irrefutable and said nothing at all.
Stalin-ism should not be a case study so you can do it right the next time, it should be a warning that you can't, even with the best of intentions.
you mean like dumping tea into the ocean to protest taxes and standing up a militia to rebel in order to establish a new government?
we definitely wouldn't want that to happen!
Not in the US you can't. If a policy, even when applied equally, unduly affects a protected class, it's unconsitutional.
For example, if a restaurant enacts a "no headwear" policy it's still unconstitutional because by and large this is primarily going to affect the muslim population (and a segment of the jewish population), but will have very little effect on anyone else.
If the policy was instead "no headwear with words on it" the policy would NOT be unconstitutional because it does NOT unduly affect a specific group of people.
There are other exceptions, of course, generally around security. You can imagine a bank not allowing the full covering of ones face for security reasons even if that does appear to target people who wear burka's day to day.
---
so long story short is that it's not super simple, but in the US you absolutely cannot try and get around it by proxy and there is established law on how to identify this.
The problem isn't that there's a line at which it becomes ok to remove yourself from, or them, forcibly.
The problem is that line has to be very very extreme, which is why you're using the Nazi example, but it's being applied to very non-extreme things, which is why so many people disagree with you.
Ben Shapiro talking about it, I'll transcribe part of it here.
> I feel bad for Ye. There are people who are bipolar in my family, like when people are in manic episodes, which he _clearly_ is in a manic episode, they say things that are insane and they think that nobody can tell them what to do and the more insane it is and the more people disapprove the more they do it. And they do crazy stuff and when he comes out of the manic episode it's ... it's going to be really really bad for him.
Someone then asked Shapiro, "would you debate with him [Ye]" and his response was "I won't debate with people who are mentally ill".
---
That seems like a pretty rational, reasoned response, and I'm not sure why you think he was harmed in some way.
Furthermore, what you're trying to argue here is that victims of rape should be protected from the word rape. No, the need to be protected from the _ACT_ of rape, how does one do that without talking about rape?
If a victim of rape feels harm from the very utterance of the word rape, that's a mental problem that should be dealt with through therapy, not by making it more difficult to protect from the _ACT_ of rape by making it more difficult to speak about it.
We have 100's of years of common law to better vet out what types of speech have a tendency to result in violence, and there's a reason why the things you're claiming result in violence are not found on that list.
I had a very religious teacher who went on a rant one day about the book 'The Clan of the Cave Bear'. Having read, and loved, the book I was at first very interested in his opinion on it.
He completely misrepresented both the book and the things that happened in the book. I was actually astounded, he very clearly had not read the book himself and got his opinion from somewhere else (this was mid 90's).
I'm completely onboard with ensuring teachers limit how much of their political and religious beliefs make it into the classroom.
OTOH, there was a controversy in the late 90's where a teacher asked a little girl not to wear a "I love jesus" t-shirt to school. Apparently there was a Mexican boy named Jesus in class and it got everyone giggling and was disruptive.
You can understand both sides there, but at the end of the day it's a place for learning and if it's being disruptive due to the students age then it's being disruptive.
So I don't think it's all that simple, but I do think we can do better.
"wanna fuck?"
Now I get to watch you and others try to backpedal "enlarging understanding" to simply mean communicate so that the above expression can fall into it, otherwise you're clearly wrong.
But no human is going to use the phrase "enlarging understanding" to simply mean communication, so I'm not going to buy it.
threats of violence, up to and including death threats, are completely legal.
What's not legal is threats of violence with both the intent and the means to follow through.
If an 80 year old man walks up to and tells me they're going to kick the shit out of me, it's perfectly legal. Not only is it legal, no one is going to do anything about it until that man actually attacks me.
If The Rock walks up to me and tells me he's going to kick the shit out of me, it's very clearly illegal (assuming we know intent, of course) and he will go to jail for it.
This is why things like repeating can also be illegal. If you never have the intent or the means to follow through with a threat, but do it repeatedly to affect mental state, that too is illegal for a different reason.
But the presumption that this speech is de facto not legal is absolutely incorrect, in the US at least.
----
Libel is not criminal in any way, shape, or form, and is a bad example as a result.