bnlxbnlx

unfortunately, not that straightforward in valve's case.

they created a nasty gambling system with their loot boxes that exists outside controlled casino environments and which impacts young adults a lot.

> there's a fair point to be made that Polymarket and similar sites are not fundamentally different from e.g. sports betting.

not fundamentally different as in "live or die" you mean? the whole point of sports is that you compete whilst appreciating each others' humanity.

by now [1], yes. but in my experience not a very popular view on HN. expect downvotes.

[1] i find peter thiel's speech at libertopia in 2010 a great early reflection of that shift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgH7Lv2gQdk

> I keep thinking about the version of me from a few years ago. He was worse at almost everything. Worse writer, worse thinker, worse at making things. Nobody really knew him and nobody really cared what he had to say. And yet he had so much more courage.

I would not agree that that earlier version had necessarily more courage. If no one cared than the associated risk is also lower, and thus less courage needed.

I overall agree with how important the courage to do stuff that might make you look stupid is, though.

there is a bypass to the Danish Straits: the Kiel Canal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_Canal

a surprising amount of people disagree with that!

> Yudkowsky and Soares maintain that if anyone builds AGI, everyone dies. One could equally maintain that if nobody builds it, everyone dies. In fact, most people are already dead. The rest of us are on course to follow within a few short decades. For many individuals—such as the elderly and the gravely ill—the end is much closer. Part of the promise of superintelligence is that it might fundamentally change this condition.

wtf? death is part of life. is he seriously arguing that if we don't build AGI people will "keep dying"? and suggesting that is equally bad as extinction (or something worse, matrix-like)?

i don't think life would be as colorful and joyful without death. death is what makes life as precious as it is.

i believe the self-balancing properties are a core aspect of any (boat) lift, whether rotating or not.

i love zulip for so many things, and in particular the topic-first paradigm.

and as long as it doesn't offer voice messages i keep going back to signal (or similar). for small groups i often find voice messages to be easiest (totally not for big groups, i agree!).

i'm supporting a small org with their decision making and feedback systems.

reading this post, i see that the founder (already in his 60s) is in many ways that "Wolf" as described here, and he's not great at managing the team around him.

any suggestions what structure/ team set up is working well in such a scenario?

intrigued by this. i've spent a lot of timer over the last years with very committed nonviolence folks, and i keep wondering about the conditions for this to work.

can you recommend any sources that discuss this idea?

I've spent a lot of time with people who seem themselves operating within ML Kings lineage and have their lives committed to this kind of nonviolence work, and they defintely operate from within the an "agape mindset", even though they wouldn't frame it like that.

in my understanding some people use 'non-violence' to describe the more utilitarian version, and 'noniovlence' for that which exits the entire 'domination paradigm'

> I have read very many people claim this and exactly zero reasons provided by them why I should believe it is true.

could you share some sources where people have discussed this? i'd like to understand their reasoning better

I think the specific condition here is "change that someone else is willing to prevent using violence". I guess that is not present too often during everyday life.

desktop only: https://fraidyc.at/

I don't think they were thinking of "no government", rather something like "government working in support of capital" (see 2008 financial crisis bank bail-outs; enforcing private ownership and protecting accumulated wealth).

I think (haven't actually watched it, but on my watchlist) this is exactly what the movie "The Corporation" (2003) [1] lays out.

[1] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0379225

Same for me

Are there any studies out there that managed to replicate their results? Anyone aware of any they could share?

Interesting, I went a little down the rabbit hole.

And it's not what I'm actually looking for. I'm looking for controlled studies with a falsifiable hypothesis and a detailed section on the study design :)

I've spent some time looking for such studies and I didn't find anything (convincing). So if anyone has something to share, I'd appreciate that

Am I understanding you correctly in that for you this isn't controversial, because it's clear from today's/some future's standpoint that RV does work?

Do you have any other sources on that? I would imagine someone replicated this...

Do you have any sources for this?

Totally. A conflict engagement rather than conflict avoidance culture is definitely helpful, so that resentment doesn't build up, and information can flow more easily.

And yes, apartments are kind of separate enough to not hear each other too much. But then also everyone has young kids anyway, so we are all used to a certain baseline noise level anyway

I'm living with my partner and her brother and family and another family who are friends of ours in a house (which has three apartments). We moved there to live together (and continued to work remotely or found work elsewhere). Six adults, six children. It's an absolute treat. I can't imagine going back to a nuclear family setup. Living in a larger web with more support from all sides (both for adults and children) is just amazing.

And of course it's often not possible or easy to do this.

Sounds soul crushing to me :( I so wish people would choose what to do based on what makes sense to them based on care for the whole.

+1! I'd love to know, too!

WOW! I didn't know! I love my oldsql casio watch, and also wished for a hackable version of it. This looks perfect!

Thank you so much for sharing.

i didn't mean to generalize in what i said, but i see that the way i framed it makes it easy to understand that way.

i totally think that for some people having children would definitely not make them more happy, possibly many. it really depends on what gives you meaning, joy (obviously) and i think to a significant extent the setup within which you are having children. before i moved into this setup with the other families parenthood was significantly less joyful for me.

privilege is also a big factor. how much education and access to resources do you have so that you have the option to choose to work less than full-time for example?

i'm living with two other families in a house (separate apartments). it lifts the hyper dependency of children on their parents and creates more room to attend to needs for both adults and children. it also makes it possible to stack many things, like grocery shopping or cooking (one person cooking for 12 people does not require three times as much time as cooking for four people). plus, there's usually always other adults at the house that you can hang out with plus many other kids for your kids to play with, so less stress with playdates etc.

Yes, parenthood is intense, both both ways. It intensifies the highs and the lows. There's more strain and there's more joy.

And there's a lot less strain when moving out of nuclear family structures. It all becomes easier for the children and the parents.