If that's a "logical conclusion" as you said, then by what kind of logic exactly? I'm curious
115 karma · joined October 13, 2022
such as?
Why do these folks dislike him so much? Because no one saw their flaws and latched onto them as viciously as he did
It's one thing to point out his own fragility and the obvious contrast with his writing, but he never intended to wholly embody the ideals that he wrote about. His goal was to pave the way for others to free themselves from the sickness of the sad passions that these belief sets so eagerly try to cultivate. A sickness from which he himself was not immune
Could you elaborate a little bit? If you're going to disregard his thought with a broad stroke, you might as well
I thought the point was to actually learn the theory behind the question so memorizing isn't necessary? Like for dp questions for example: it's easier to do them if you just visualize the dag
The whole "memorize every question" shtick is the wrong way imo. Just seems very time inefficient to me
> Decentralisation was always a phantom. At most it’s a way to say “can’t sue me, bro.” Every process in Bitcoin tends to centralisation — because Bitcoin runs on economic incentives, and centralised systems are more economically efficient.
How exactly does anything specific about bitcoin imply anything about decentralization in general? And how do we know that centralized systems are more efficient?
These quotes sum up the author's thinking:
> Bitcoin is not about the technology. It’s never been about the technology. Bitcoin is about the psychology of getting rich for free
> The marketing pitch is that the actual-money economy will surely collapse any moment now! And if you get into Bitcoin, you can get rich from this.
This says all that needs to be said about the author. Cherry picking ridiculous examples, making broad generalizations about the interest behind bitcoin, this author has all this in common with the news media.
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who thinks it's their "moral duty" to shill for the central banks. These folks can churn out all the shitty blog posts and editorials they want, at the end of the day, they'll never be able to freeze wallets like they've frozen bank accounts. This is what upsets them
[1] https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2022/08/20/proof-of-sta...
[2] https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/06/27/bitcoin-myth...
meant a lot harder
If everything is free, then no one has to pay for anything. But everything isn't free. Maybe a bunch of libraries are, but do the suits know how to stitch them together (or even read the documentation)?
And even if it was all free, do you think most people would have the background or patience to sift through it all and turn it into something productive?
Public library cards are free, do you see most people going to libraries and making the most of them?
Even if all software happened to be free, most people don't have the patience to read it. Hence we have people who get paid to read it and figure out what the fuck is going on
There definitely is. Personalization is more effective than blind advertising. This can be either a benefit or an extreme drawback depending on how you see the economic system
> We have seen social media bubbles that arise due to algorithmically driven content discovery/suggestions.
Imo these platforms are bad for personal growth and should be avoided, but so should TV for the exact same reason. You could replace internet with TV in this situation, the addiction problem would still be the same. Getting rid of social media wouldn't solve the media addiction problem
The additional problem with bubbles and personalization is it targets more aggressively, which can lead to people getting targeted by predatory advertisements. The initial problem here isn't the personalization, it's the fact that the economic system is predatory. Personalization is just pouring gas on the fire
this is the cringiest one I've heard so far. No wonder it came from someone in middle management
All the grifters who hopped on post 2020, yes
But the actual implementation of a p2p electronic currency that cuts financial institutions out of the equation? This isn't bullshit, just math. There's a reason why the NYT is so hostile to crypto, and it isn't "the environment"
Maybe we should ban sugar also? /s
Maybe on the internet. irl we have something called a "public library". more people should check them out
imo both truth and lies are paywalled. It's just that truth tends to be a lot more boring than lies, and a lot easier to take in with just a glance
sounds to me like it's an optimization for introducing more tiers than what there are
Work in that context meant a job, ie paid labor
> And having kids can be emotionally fulfilling. Watching the development of ones children and experiencing the world through their eyes is powerful.
This has nothing to do with marriage
> But your attitude that marriage is somehow transactional or whatever ignores a lot of human emotional aspects.
Because it's a legal agreement, viz transactional. The emotional aspect is love. Love does not imply marriage (a legal agreement).
You love someone so much that you decide to enter into a legally binding agreement, and because of the love alone and not other factors like tradition or conformity?
This makes no sense, loving someone and entering into a legal agreement are two entirely different concepts
Wasn't the point of marriage because women weren't supposed to work? And now they are, so what exactly is the point? "Taxes" or something?
Just look at the title of the article, it's implying that no marriage is associated with being "aimless", as if the meaning of life is marriage -> kids -> more cannon fodder and tax base. No higher purpose. Just more baby making
The entire attitude here (which is especially prevalent in US media) seems highly reactionary in tone. If (wo)men don't want marriage, then more power to them. Life is finite
edit: if you downvote, reply
Maybe that's not on the table atm? Still odd that they took so long to change a couple method signatures and write a couple test cases
Pretty freaky if true
You're assuming here that people work long hours because they identify with their employer. If a programmer works long hours, is it because they love their employer or because they love programming in general? I'd say the latter, it sounds to me like you're saying the former
As far as the colleagues part goes, if someone is truly close to their colleagues, they keep in touch even after leaving the job. If working at X employer is required to keep in touch with those colleagues, the relationship isn't that strong to begin with
> (severance payment – and this is not strictly about financial safety but about respecting employees – and communicating with empathy)
I mean, if you're laying someone off, how it's communicated is of secondary importance. There's a way of doing it professionally and giving them proper severance, doing the right thing, et cetera. But what exactly do you have in mind here, with "laying someone off with empathy"? Are you talking about Musk being a dickhead? Personally that's less insulting than seeing a CEO fake crying about laying people off on LinkedIn
> And in that context Musk unemphatically arriving with a fucking sink as a joke, overall handling the layoffs extremely badly and without a shred of empathy anywhere to be seen is fucking awful. And I’m just weirded out that that‘s not the tone seen here.
You might be generalizing a bit (with respect to attitudes seen here). Musk is an unprofessional asshole. Would you prefer he pretend not to be one and lay people off with "heartfelt conversations" instead? Personally I find the former less sickening than the latter, but ideally he would've just done a normal layoff sin theatrics and moved on
As for the employees, I'm sure it's awful and they're scrambling rn to find new employment. Luckily for them they have Twitter on their resume. I do however worry about the people on H1b finding new employment in this economic climate
Why is it that there's all this griping about salaries when PMs, EMs, data scientists, etc make similar pay in a similar COL situation?
COL aside, imo SWEs could make twice as much and it still wouldn't be adequate. Apple's revenue per employee is over 2 million, their median SWE comp is probably only 1/8th of that
We should unionize
but how many people actually do this? Even then, if someone does it and learns from it then they've set themselves up to make even more down the road
I mean, we definitely could. They'd be seriously fucked if we did. It's a wonder it hasn't happened yet
It isn't just the 9-5, but the idea that your job stops when you leave the office. If people see it as a transactional relationship only, it means there's less investment in the product