There would be a market for a DNS provider to provide a PKEY setup for the user to blacklist ad domains or whatnot similar to what the pi-hole does.
There is always a technical solution, that's the beauty of it :)
166 karma · joined May 30, 2016
There is always a technical solution, that's the beauty of it :)
I thought hacker news was more rational and logical than my twitter feed - maybe not.
Assange and WL is the last bastion of free speech and genuine joirnalism left in our modern age.
If you dont see that, then youre a fool.
> how do you pull it off?
I'm honest to a fault in every way, with my own personality. When I'm depressed this is self-destructive, but when I'm happy it seems to invigorating to the team mates and friends around me. This seems to click positively with people in general, gives me a lot of rope ;). Confidence in your own truth, I think is the key one-liner here.
> How do you survive?
Living true is freeing, the privilege to be able to do it a blessing. But if your 'truth' is that you're a bitter, shitty person. It will kill you.
Live true but have your core-motives, your convictions, in order. 'Be a positive influence on everyone and anyone I interact with' is a good start.
> What do you tell your managers and your interviewers?
Interviews: play the game. Haven't ever tried the snowflake approach to interviews, haven't seen any evidence to give me the confidence needed to pull it off.
Managers: truth, it's a slow build before you can dump deep truth on people, but bit by bit, let them know what you're about and WHY.
Depending on the temperament of the manager, they either become mates, or they respect/disapprove from a distance.
Hopefully you can pull some value from this stranger <3
Idiotic change, isn't bureaucracy great.
* https://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_foer_feats_of_memory_anyone...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ebJlcZMx3c
Make more connections to the things you need to remember. Make a tune out of the specifics or make a quick phonetic story out of it.
Good stuff.
I haven't been able to forget my ex's anniversary date because I remember it as "she's a 10/10" (oct 10).
The most valuable philosophers of today IMO, are those that stay on the rails of pragmatism for the everyday struggles of the average citizen.
Stefan Molyneux on youtube is a good example.
He gets off the rails a little bit, but his core ideals of ethics and moral virtue is something I value quite highly in my everyday life.
Don't have the technical knowledge, nor do I care to put in the hours to figure it all out.
It's the mental "gym" for living a healthy, happy life.
I'm disgusted with the lack of critical thinking it represents.
The Boston protests (for example) were purely about Free Speech: http://i.imgur.com/abhmjW8.png
Yet thousands of protesters show up, shout slurs and weave their own narratives that the protesters are nazis which then justify their directed hate.
It's disgusting: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskThe_Donald/comments/6utjoi/anyon...
It's just mobs justifying hate, its the most ironic shit I've ever seen. It just fills me with more discontent and distrust of the majority and the mob.
Idiocracy is getting less and less satirical by the day.
Eh?
> Only in abstract terms.
You want something literal? Lets throw some reverse-VIOLENCE into the mix!
I'm going to bash my neighbors head in, because he's "definitely" a violent psychopath (It said so on the internet remember).
The heart of the issue is DISCRIMINATION. Doesn't matter if its positive or negative, you're EXCLUDING groups/individuals which is divisive and breeds discontent.
Someone posted below
> judged by the content and quality of their character rather than some of the variation of an attempt to combat discrimination through discrimination.
THAT is equality.
Looking forward to your solid rebuttals then! Woo!
> He starts off by saying he's not against diversity
Mmm
> but then spends the rest of the paper demonstrating the exact opposite
Ummm, okay... You've got a positive assertion here, so you must have something solid here to back up your opinion, right?
> ..and then justifies it by claiming that men and women are biologically different... ...It's simply him trying to justify his prejudice, and railing at "PC culture" for not letting him do so.
Isn't that exactly what you're doing in your comment? Got your own narrative going on, assuming the intent of the author...
> This isn't dialog, nor does he want dialog.
> It's simply him trying to justify his prejudice,
> They don't really want to honestly debate the merits of each position.
Like holy shit you spent the entire comment doing the exact thing you complain about the author doing.
This is the sort of mindset that kills progress, the inability to flirt with the concept of being disillusioned and truly question your own stance and bias. Its like you "mean well" and that's all that matter to you.
Idk man, you can't judge others on their ACTIONS and then only judge yourself on your INTENT.
I find your defensiveness and inflammatory remarks more unprofessional and unproductive then anything else in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lus5J4vYMNg
If you disagree with someone, be civil - debate with logic and rationality.
I'd like to rebut that point as we have anonymous, mainstream means to socialize nowadays. Chaotic (4chan) and moderated (mediums like Hacker News).
Users speak truth to power all the time on these platforms, is it effective? eh.
IMO there is a lot of value in these words coming from someone (from google) who is clearly switched-on, yet has A LOT to lose. Either the discussion is presented to the general populace and we accept it and learn from it, or the google employee becomes a martyr.
Either way, the fallout of this document is what interests me.
Right. Its a comment on a thread, it has zero context. You don't know whether it was or wasn't appropriate based on the context.
You're jumping on the "unprofessional" bandwagon without investigating further. An "affirmative stance" if you will.
You don't see the irony?
This is why I avoid gender politics like the plague, the debates are not grounded in logic and rationality.
Because of the job environment, as an employee you UNDERSTAND the CONTEXT and INTENT behind the working conditions.
This logic applies to life and all social interactions. Assume innocence, positivity and optimism in the INTENT behind the words of strangers - until they give you a reason to think otherwise.
To anyone who disagrees: If you do not subscribe to this ideal, then what are you advocating as an alternative? Everyone be extremely PC and hyper-aware of everything they say and the indefinite amount of ways their words can be interpreted? it makes just no sense.
Crying foul, fighting to get what you "want" in the moment, rather then what is true and just - I'm just tired of it all, burnt out by the lack of rationality in these sorts of discussions.
The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues and is already assuming intent as malicious. The whole racism/sexism view-point comes from a misunderstanding and attribution of malice to innocent parties, it's so god damn ironic.
I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism. But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory. Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance.
But If I don't get any discourse, I can't learn anything or have my opinion changed, anyway here we go...
> If you really understood addiction.
I hear this dismissive retort a lot in the addict community. It's nonsense.
If you can't empirically analyze, measure and explain "what its like", or defend your view-point rationally - then you've lost.
The attitude of "You just don't get it man! you need to be an addict to understand what its truly like" is complete and utter self-victimization bullshit.
> But, of course, you're not thinking of addiction as a medical issue. You're treating it like a moral failure.
I treat is as both. I guess it depends on your virtues and morals, but in my eyes; logic and rationality comes first. Responsibility lies in the human being behind the labels.
Within the journey of addiction, there are many moral struggles and choices that you'll need to make (avoiding taking action on a difficult choice, is still a choice).
Sure, physical addiction is fucked and withdrawals are fucked. But the second you commit an evil deed to feed your addiction, I lose all sympathy.
I'd rather spend my time helping those that deserve it, than those that need it - I guess that's the crux of my perspective.
Maybe its a little harsh as there are (assumption) a lot of quiet, functioning addicts that just meld into society. I don't have enough information to form a legitimate opinion on that specific subset. My distaste for addicts are purely those that have run the gauntlet and have traded in their morals, decency and humanity in ugly ways to satiate their vice.
This comes with a side of geopolitical challenges sure, but that's not an issue the technology itself is responsible for solving.
I like the consistent experience between the desktop and mobile versions - eliminating the need to download dedicated apps for each adblock-like service you want on your phone and the dependencies that come with it (root etc).
Hacker news is good for intelligent discussion, but when the topic is on something that isn't empirically measure-able (IE: mental health in this scenario) conversation goes downhill pretty quickly. I'm quite concerned about how the majority are medicating so quickly, early and in a way that's mostly unchallenged.
I mean we barely understand the I/O of the brain, yet we're claiming some pretty heavy positive bias on chemical remediation. It's a pretty farked situation, being unable to talk about it in a neutral environment frustrates me to no end. The top comment on this thread though, perfectly sums up my perspective on depression:
"It's the realization that I was depressed for actual emotional reasons and not just because of some putative neurochemical imbalance, the idea of which in such huge numbers makes absolutely no evolutionary sense. A trait this common is not a disorder---it's a survival mechanism."
I want to understand depression, it's just such a hard issue to tackle scientifically. The scientific method takes the subject out of the equation, nuking any sort of bias. But that doesn't work when the issue that needs to be understood IS the subject.
I need data, subjective perspective from all walks of life is the best dataset I think I can use to shape my understanding. I want to talk about depression from a neutral, logical, mindful and philosophical perspective. Maybe then I might understand where, why and how medication would or should come into play.
This is equal outcome in my eyes, not equal opportunity. It's a stance of absolutes, a "perfect-world" scenario - a practical impossibility.
You've got to align your goals and perspectives to the reality of the world. Men and women are genetically and physically different which manifests in many different ways culturally. There are so many variables here that I'd be writing an essay if I wanted to list everything that shapes my bias - but the point I'm getting at here is; as individuals we're all different in varying ways and this is a great thing (I'd rather not be genderless, featureless clones).
Focusing on eliminating negative bias is great, sure. But its not a gender issue and should never be institutionally enforced as such. Hell, cultural issues and differences should never be institutionally enforced in my eyes. It's just trading in negative discrimination for positive discrimination.
Depends where you define the line between opportunity and outcome. You could take a step back and argue that equal opportunity exists in the education space for both women and men to thrive in said field. The fact that this doesn't result in a 50/50 split in gender in the market is an indicator to me that the cause isn't institutional, it's cultural.
You can't police culture and you shouldn't be trying to police the outcomes of a "free market". I appreciate your perspective, but I think you've honed in on symptoms, not the cause.
If the cause is institutional, fix it 100%. All hands on board, sign me up.
If its cultural - adapt. Cultures will also adapt in-time to the individuals that make up said culture.
Culture and everything else that comes along with gender minority work environments. You adapt, like everyone else.
The push for institutionally enforced advantages is just insane:
> “Tying bonuses to diversity outcomes signals that diversity is something the company cares about and thinks is important,”
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. Giving a minority share an unfair advantage in the market just because "they're a minority" is not progress. I'm so disappointed at how manipulative these sorts of ideals are in reality. Their proponent's hearts are in the right place, but the outcomes are just so backwards.
Regardless of your gender, if you're in an environment and you're discriminated against in an illegal way, go through the appropriate legal channels and crush it. Stop wasting our time trying to police culture.
/rant