Finally: The Real Web 3.0
141 karma · joined June 14, 2022
Despite this paper (and most forms) clearly specifying "three objects", I've always seen this taught as three random/arbitrary words of different "types" - adjective/noun/verb, person/place/thing - or just "two common objects" instead of exactly a pen and a watch.
It's always fascinating to me when patients come up with incorrect-but-clever words for common items: "cutters" for scissors, "timeclock" for watch, "cigarette starter" for a lighter, etc.
Insurance would have been more than the monthly car payment, and when I expressed that $400/mo wasn't awful, but $1,000/mo for a car was a non-starter, the guy was seriously like "Well, do you want to eat food, or have a car (with lighted cup holders) to get to work?" and "If you can't afford rent, you can sleep in the car!"
That's still one of the dumbest conversations I've ever had.
His stuff is full of this type of humor, with notes of whatever decades of covering Florida Man stories for a Miami newspaper does to a man.
Only that one guy would use it for one person, sometimes similar to whatchamacallit: "Guy! Whaddareya doin up there?!" "C'mon, guy! We're gonna be late!" "Any of you guys see my toolbox? Did guy take it again?" (Which guy, man? Dude, there's like ten guys here. Bro, you gotta be more specific.)
Stoned and bored, I picked one off the shelf at random (Mother Night). I'm not sure how I missed Vonnegut's name on the cover, but I mistook it for one of his legitimate history books and read it cover-to-cover in one sitting. Woah, we definitely never learned about this in school!
Chief, on the other hand, I've only heard directed at males.
I believe this is one of the avenues argued for "Tech Addictive"/"Screens Bad" - that the intrinsic value of bzzzzzt could, at least hypothetically, be as high as, say, nudes or an "omw" text, or even your dealer texting he's 5min away; and that this inflated value is in turn projected, however briefly, onto every once-in-a-lifetime sale and useless 3am app notification about an icon set update or something.
There's also obviously the much-written-about addictive UI/UX features employed in various places. I vaguely recall one or two unfortunate email chains, maybe, but am assuming most product teams didn't go into meetings with nefarious intentions of getting their users psychologically addicted.
Nevertheless, addictions can be triggered by adjacent things, and however little dopamine "all the little red little circles all over the place" release in my grandmother's brain is probably very different from a chainsmoking coke user taking a swig from his bottle as he picks up his phone to see: - 32 New Facebook notifications! - Your dispensary order is ready for pickup! - sexybabe_notabot69 liked your profile! - Your bank account is overdrawn! - 18 new Twitter notifications! - ALL NEW SLOT MACHINES! NOW WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF FRUIT AND SHAPES! - You're never gonna learn Spanish if you keep doing drugs, Carl! - DON'T MISS OUT! JIMMY BUFFET LIVE AT THE CASINO THIS WEEKEND! - Your order has shipped! - YOU'RE GONNA LOSE YOUR VIP STATUS IF YOU DON'T COME BACK HERE AND GAMBLE - Re: Hey - THIS WEEKEND ONLY!!!! ANNUAL ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME SALE!
I think I could probably make the argument that maximizing for, say, MAUs/DAUs, is essentially an addictive cycle - a la "valueless reward" - in the business process, probably citing lots of business types who have written lots about how optimizing for the wrong metrics will leave your company broke and homeless too.
So, I guess I'm saying "Using a computer is not a drug", particularly as you used it, is nearly indisputably true, but somewhat misses the conversation being had (however dumb), and that it's worth looking at all of the links in the causal chain and examining how, for example, alarm fatigue and <sleep stuff> compare and contrast (and occur comorbidly with) actual addictive and/or depressive syndromes - for exactly the reasons you listed, like:
"We've found that homeless people using Facebook are xy.z% more likely to relapse on heroin, don't understand statistics, and therefore don't allow our clients to use the internet, except for this one from 2005 that lets them digitally sign the form we need to get reimbursed for the bed."
Especially given that it's a centuries-old technology, installed upstream of many (perhaps "most"?) things, and yet THE ENTIRE DOWNSTREAM ECOSYSTEM (which, since all streams lead to ABSOLUTE SACRIFICE AND TOTAL DESTRUCTION), is THE ABSOLUTE ANNIHILATION OF EVERY ECOSYSTEM.
Do I need to download a new copy of TehScienceConsensus.pdf again? What page did you get this from?
A) Legend has it that the last bow-tie-wearing nerd to question this policy slipped and fell overboard, or was maybe left for dead in the parking lot of some fisherman's dive bar in a quaint New England town. Nobody really knows for sure, because HIPAA, I think.
B) nobody in any decision-making-slash-accountability chain dares approach it that way, not only because they don't want to be knifed to death behind an AutoZone, but precedent goes back to, I dunno exactly, but I'll be bold and say "the dawn of seafaring", or maybe "whenever international maritime law was written down". (It ends up finding its way into "render assistance" clauses in some motor vehicle codes, by way of Rich People Horseless Carriage Sunday Driving Clubs and their Gentlemanly Codes of Honour or whatever - notably, predating Good Samaritan, IIRC.)
C) Most "diverted" resources probably aren't really doing anything of importance anyway, and people dying takes precedence over, say, taking pictures of the water or how sparkly the ozone layer is. Also, there's a good chance it's <training>.
There's usually a high degree of parallelism during the Search phase, as only the irrelevant half of the math works out on the fuel/time efficiency of, say, 1 aircraft vs 100 to fly a grid when the guy is (e.g.) clinging to a liferaft rope with broken arms, legs, back, and pelvis in 5' seas. The other 98 can go home (or the circles they were flying before) when Search is solved for and Rescue begins.
D) it's free training, almost certainly more interesting-slash-valuable than whatever was planned, and much higher fidelity than any simulation - PLUS! all of the inadequate planning, mixed messaging, nose-picking, dick-measuring, wrong radio channel-ing, confusion, ignorance, broken equipment, and general chaos of dealing with actual people in real life! ("practice how you perform/you perform how you practice")
As the OP demonstrates, there's often only a moment or two between your shitbox (built by the lowest bidder) catching on fire, and the need to flawlessly execute and context-switch through multiple checklists, with only your non-dominant hand, flight gloves, and your backup pocket knife, else everything explodes and everybody dies, The End.
The Navy sends ships out to sea during hurricanes, both because it's safer than smashing against docks, and “A smooth sea never made a skilled sailor". Also, there are some interesting anecdotes about building lazy or incorrect muscle memory, or people panicking and reverting to classroom-style behavior (like cleaning up and organizing tools) when they feel they've reached The End of their Scenario, as it were. Contrary to popular myth, most people get dumber and forget the most basic of things under pressure, rather than Rising To The Occasion and, classically, lifting a car off of a baby.
So, I suppose all of this is to say that one should probably also amortize the (extraordinary) cost of things like this over the value of things like "a competent Navy", "proficient aeromedical crews", "Marines that can count AND do things with their hands", "being able to insert a trauma surgeon (or explosives) basically anywhere in the world inside of a few hours", and so on.
As an old partner of mine would sing while chugging preworkout, checking equipment, and getting psyched for the day:
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow // This opportunity comes once in a lifetime // You better
(Or, if you prefer the Latin: Haec Facimus, Ut Alii Vivant, Ut Ceteri Vivant, Etc.)
I've only seen it a handful of times in the wild - notably, a flight school wall - and every so often to close out blog entries on High-Speed, Low-Drag™ topics in (i.e.) aviation, search and rescue, emergency medicine, etc.
There's a few clever "practice" ones too that I can't seem to recall, other than: "Oops, guess that's why they call it practicing medicine!"
"Amateurs practice till they get it right; professionals practice till they can't get it wrong."
Pilots are some of my favorite people.
On the spectrum of unemployed fry cook to 6-figure tech job, "attracting recruiter spam bots" and "attracting overly-clever recruiters" isn't far from actually Getting There and/or Making It - so long as you keep showing up and making an effort. Definitely not a quick life hack.
Long-ish term career moves are really the only reason I check on that stuff anyway, and get more value from the relative rankings of, say, language popularity and jobs, than any number I come to. I work in a job I like, in an industry I like, in a language I like at a very fair rate, so I'm not too concerned about it, but part of that is from figuring out what were dead-ends/non-starters for me, identifying niches, etc. (+1 for the ikigai thing, too).
> Nobody cares if you made some 1 line change to some OSS project. Any meaningful change requires more work and effort
For sure, if you're presenting yourself as "a [project name here] developer", but the conversation in interviews I've had has tended to center around, say, how we used to use [that horrible old thing] until we found [shiny new thing].
I'm pretty sure I've never impressed anyone with my OSS contributions, save maybe one person who somehow remembered an exact bug and considered fixing it, but I think we were more impressed we both remembered the bug than the handful of lines of code it took to replace `insecureConnections: true` with `insecureConnections: $insecureConnections` and add a `caCerts` property to be passed in to a constructor somewhere.
So I guess again, it was the pattern of making minor fixes ("just showing up") rather than being some super l33t hax04 genius or major project maintainer or whatever that got me the credit that mattered.
Sure, $10 billion seems like a lot to stand up two postgres containers, but can you really put a price tag on something like this?
a bunch of surveillance state simps in a comments section called me naïve and said it's against the law to use a product in a manner other than directed, so this could never possibly happen
nobody ever could have predicted this [specific series of events and actors]
i guess this is what they mean by a black swan event
v strange. such tragic.
statue of liberty weeping again
A while back, I estimated myself around 7-15%, based on an average of "average ___" searches (not remotely rigorous). I was shocked, given that I'm an essentially-average software developer in an essentially-average developer role. I would have been impressed with a "top 30%", given all the talented people in the industry who are paid much more than I. I tried a few more things, and eventually felt pretty confident in a "top 10%", but it still didn't feel right.
To me (and I'm not disagreeing with you here), a "top 1-5%" engineer is one of those mysterious dragons that codes with toggle switches in octal deep inside of a lair of some kind, has invented or described an entire domain of knowledge, language, and/or operating system, etc. - and I certainly don't feel 2-5% away from that, lemme tell ya.
It was kind of like waking up to find out that my name and email address had been entered into an archive of humanity's most important code - all the critical stuff we would need to start over if a meteor struck and brought the dinosaurs back or whatever. It was burned, IIRC, into a golden USB drive, a platinum LaserDisc, and that special paper librarians like, stored forever in a super-sekret vault deep in the Arctic, next to the seeds, I assume.
Certainly, the handful of miscellaneous patches, like un-hard-coding a variable here-and-there, in relatively minor projects, and on features nobody was really using anyway, doesn't make me or my code that important (or even necessary, in most cases). And yet, when the future archeologists knock over a seed pot and discover the Ancient Golden USB Drive of GitHub Commits, I'll be on that list.
I especially like the thought of it being displayed, context-free, in some alien museum, a la Linear B, with a note that says "We have no idea what this means", or maybe "developer complains about security vs. business priorities in comment about encryption". Anyone else get the Arctic Code Vault Contributor badge?
Anyway, as I rationalize it, the Top 20% are the ones already here, doing it, making my Top 7% more in line with my gut feeling of "a little above average sometimes, but by no means exceptional". The 80% are those people merely thinking about learning to code, only considering contributing to open source, abandoning starter kits and tutorials 3/4s of the way through, etc. Maybe they'll join us one day soon.
This also demystifies the dragon: we're making that same error that saw Bernie Sanders' "Top 1% of The 1%" (The 0.01%, or 0.0001) diluted into Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson's "Top 1%" and, eventually, "Top 10%" (a thing I especially resent as a self-described 7%-er).
These errors are so common - hopefully I didn't do it in that parenthetical - that Google's on-site prep material included a handout specifically on this topic.
Google, I said! Have you heard it's 10x harder to get into Google than Harvard? They only accept something like 0.2 (or was it 0.2%?) of candidates.
Harvard! That most selective of institutions, whose discrimination is only surpassed by the most exclusive of exclusive organizations, like Google and Wal-Mart.
Only some exceedingly-small percentage of candidates, with the denominator being every half-assed application of every entirely-unqualified candidate ever submitted, even get invited to an on-site interview. What an exclusive club!
I haven't been admitted to any of them, of course - I blame it on answering the steal-the-pen question wrong on the WalMart kiosk when I was 17 and it ending up on my Permanent Record - but it might also be because I never even applied to Harvard. Carlin was right: it's a big club, and [we] ain't in it.
So, by some metrics, I guess I am in the top 1-5% of developers, but those metrics are sketch.
So, as one of humanity's most important top 1-5% developers, I can say with great authority that, if you're already out here reading this and have typed "git push" at any point in the past week, you're much closer to that "top 1-5%" than you think. You CAN do anything* you want! (Including enjoying your weekends!) The Magic, I'm told, is in the work one has been avoiding.
P.S. If you do it this weekend on just about any open source project, you'll officially, definitionally, be an open source contributor! (And I promise the recruiter bots will find your email and you'll have more (interview) offers than gift card scams in your inbox in no time)