forgottenpass

I don't think any of those are direct causes, the day to day realities of the world trend harsher as we look back at older generations.

I will grant that they are indirect causes, in that the way adults process the issues among themselves inadvertently create the society that the young are growing up in.

>What explains the epidemic of teen depression and suicide?

When the go-to theories this guy mentions are are cyberbulling, drugs and alcohol, I've got a problem. Either he's not being honest about the current theories, or shows there exists zero insight to today's teenagers' experience of the world.

>We should have universal screening of teenagers at school, with parental consent, to identify those who are suffering from depression and who are at risk of suicide.

Perhaps we should add "living in a world structured by boomers who think mandatory psychiatric intervention of all teenagers for the purpose of identifying a disorder characterized by bad mood and lack of self-esteem is a good idea" to the list of reasons teens might experience depression.

>boiler plate views [] on SV with no real insight.

Judging by only this article and the author's n+1 article, I get the expectation that the contents will be not-wrong but not-far-enough. The "boiler plate views" as you put it are popular because they contain blind spots - intentional or not - where a lot of damning criticism can be found. But their exclusion gives comfort to people with one foot in the valley bubble. People will more readily accept criticism of something that involves them if they get to sit on the periphery unscathed.

The risk to such coverage is that the reaction is surface level adaptation. Where problems don't get fixed, they just evolve to be less tangible.

The article makes me suspect (and the n+1 piece only raises my suspicion that) this is all very Valley-approved criticism of the Valley. The new cultural train chasing the old one out.

All the new ground I've read comes from places that are easier just to ignore. Mostly bloggers removed enough that they don't care about surrounding a potentially-uncomfortable message with prose that accommodates the sensibilities of the valley. They manage to drive readers away before getting to the point. The ideas have to travel like a meme among the disillusioned until the sharp edges are sanded down enough for the general-purpose cynics, who refine it into something suitable for consumption.

I think the act of bringing postmodern tools to the debate was a way of playing the "I win" game by turning the conversation into inescapable morass for those that weren't accustomed to that kind of debate.

Whatever the "reactionaries" did in response was yet another step in the evolution of the back-and-forth and no more or less in bad faith than the previous step.

As long as the worlds greatest surveillance system continues to be given deliberate access to the plaintext, I will continue not caring about HTTPS for websites that don't have users logging into an account or submitting forms.

If you think about a very popular federated system called email, it's pretty easy to see why the local controlling body is not only fine but in some cases a very desirable property.

And the "scale" argument for email centralization is obvious bunk for all properties of "scale" that aren't "some people can redefine what email is on a whim", but even without centralization google is still pulling that one off.

I'm a bit lost. Which of these is this advertisement claiming:

- Without their route planning, latency is introduced by packets spending too much time in a device while it chooses which route to send them?

- Without their route planning, latency is introduced by packets traveling geographically inefficent routes?

- Internet routing technology isn't able determine the best path to send packets along?

- The internet links are too saturated, route onto our network as fast as possible?

>I've lost maybe two days of work because of package server outages [...] For the clients and employers in question, this was acceptable downtime.

Even if the downtime is fine, I don't find it goes over too well if framed as "we rely on a 3rd party service, that we have no contract with nor any guarantees of reliability or product longevity."

>While porn creators belonged to tightly connected subgroups, they were linked to the rest of Tumblr’s network “with a very high number of ties,” and their productions “spread widely across the whole social graph.” In other words, they weren’t quarantined off in some illicit corner of the site—they were woven into its basic fabric: The average Tumblr user in the sample followed 51 blogs, two or three of which tended to be specifically porn, and another two of which tended to be “bridge” blogs, run by users who were particularly likely to reblog porn.

Pron not seen as an "other" in a medium that didn't go out of it's way to make it othered?

This is exactly the kind of insight that only takes a study when a society is simultaneously marinated in censorship and unwilling to admit any instance of it deserves the label "censorship." It's not like censorship is anything new, or that the mechanisms and ramifications are poorly understood.

>in my education through grade 12, most everything was filtered through a compassionate lens.

The phony compassion delivered by public schooling taught me to be nihilistic. I think that's what the parent poster was getting at. It wasn't a strict adherence to some system I once got a lecture about (because I didn't get one either), but as a natural response to the platitudes they taught.

I could shake off that "wrong" way of thinking because I was under the impression it was abnormal and needed to blend in with the crowd. So in retrospect from writing this post... I guess what they really taught me was doublethink.

> Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ?

A handful of improvements came tied to a bunch of new constraints and limitations that were not mandatory to get those improvements. This annoys the people who deal in those less visible areas and got the short end of the stick.

A large chunk of what systemd does could have been implemented without also sprawling it's tentacles and cross-dependencies into everything. Had they rolled out that featureset first and given the rest of the ecosystem some time to evolve in response adoption would have gone much smoother.

I see it too. It's like the correlation vs. causation error, but less rigorous. More like coexistence vs. causation.

Now that you've caught this trend, you'll start seeing the more generic form of it everywhere.

>"older white male" shorthand to point out that we need to structure society and the economy in a way that protects all people from burnout and provides access to the tools and treatment to recover from it to all.

That "shorthand" is going to inadvertently open the possibility of the reader to drawing broader and less exact conclusions than if the writer were more careful in their choice of words.

Using "older white male" makes it sound like the goal is something that's already broadly available (and just being artificially limited) rather than a thing for people with riches or worked hard to get it. They're therefore statistically older, having worked to get into that position and probably only have access to limited doses unless they've been phenomenally successful.

>Rather than assuming all people are sufficiently well off to take 6 months to do a Jack Dorsey style Buddhist retreat.

What's the goal here? How big is the gulf between Doresy's adventure and "protect[ing] all people from burnout and provid[ing] access to the tools and treatment to recover"? Outside of fully automated luxury space communism, next to nobody is going to have the resources to not only not work for six months, but to also hand over all their regular day-to-day responsibility like taking care of family, paying their bills and making sure the house didn't burn down.

>He is too radical, so radical, that we cannot understand him, he is out of Overton window.

My introduction to wikileaks was when it was first covered on slashdot, before any leaks with any relevancy to me. At that time the stated mission statement was to publish all of the leaked documents after authenticating them in an effort to subject secret actions of government to more scrutiny. And make those in government more cautions about what they'll do even with the cover of secrecy. It was created by people from the anglosphere, therefore the US was always going to be a large part of their focus. No matter how much more deserving of criticism other countries may be.

With that as a throughline (and even back then Assange had a bit of reputation as a wanker), I've never been _that_ surprised with the way the project has acted over the years. If my only exposure to Assange was the coverage whenever he made the news, I would find the whole thing impenetrable. It's one of the things that first made me start seeing how poorly thrown together news narratives really are.

How big is "modern" these days? I have a multiple 22" 1920x1080 screens instead of one huge one, and after making the font as small as is still comfortable at my viewing distance I get 202 visible columns in maximized VS Code. At a still-workable but small enough size that I'll start unconsciously hunching at my desk I can get up to 271. Common laptop screen sizes are even more constrained.

I also like to have one monitor turned to 1080x1920 for text editing and consoles. I'd never try to do a side-by-side diff on it, but it really makes you see just how many GUIs are downright wasteful of horizontal space.

Not often. But when you're implementing something that needs a lot of iteration, a test case that you never commit can be a good alternative to copy-pasting statements into REPL. Then as it comes together you can just clean up that garbage test and turn it into something worth committing.

99% of people building at "scale" are borrowing bragging rights from a large company they happen to be employed by and/or tools they use while doing zero novel work unique to the size of their deployment.

To say that these paper tigers are above the bikeshedding of all the plebs is quintessential software echochamber.

We're not talking about inalienable rights. That's implied in the title of the linked post.

If you don't care about "good"/"bad" decisions and just care about the legal bounds, just say so and dismiss the article out of hand. Your roundabout question just drags discussion down.

>I expect Uber to care a lot about privacy.

Uber cares about the confidentiality of their business records. They will continue to not give a single fuck about privacy. There is a difference.

>“We’re not looking at the data. It’s just machines and algorithms doing this work,” said Mr. Tan.

That's still looking at it. When are we going to stop letting people get away with this lie?

So, it's a boilerplate generator that you'd use instead of a library providing an abstraction layer?

>Because it would be awesome to charter small flights from an app to jump to a nearby city.

I doubt the cost of a pilot's time alone is a big enough factor to meaningfully change the number of people with access to chartered flights.

The other costs (hours of plane time, fuel, ramp fee, parking fees, maintenance) probably dwarf pilot time as a percentage of total cost. And you're either pushing the absolute unreliability of aviation [0] to the customers who are now trapped in a different city, or they're paying even more to the app to have backup plans ready to roll.

[0] Commercial aviation deals at a scale that can absorb flights that don't keep their plan. You go to the counter, get rebooked, and angrily eat some shitty fast food. When something goes wrong on a private flight, you're pacing around on the tarmac at 1 am, 3 states away from home and have to be at work in the morning.

>I feel like we could easily get there before we got self-driving cars, if we wanted to.

The environment has shown quite clearly that we don't want to. We'd probably already have it if we did.

The safety design of aviation relies on having multiple highly competent people in the loop on every flight and exercising their judgement on dozens of things. And that's for the best-case scenario, they also have to be capable of choosing and executing fallback plans when part of the overall system (the plane, air traffic, radio navigation, flying conditions, ground conditions, etc...) degrades or enters an unexpected state.

If you think his associates were fucking children or involved in the prostitution ring, just say so.

If you don't think that, well then we do have to hem and haw about how much guilt by association they carry. Because for a lot of people, business connections or rubbing elbows for money with bad people doesn't get much blowback. Just look at Tim Cook gladhanding dictators of nations where homosexuality is outlawed. Or manufacturing in countries with ethnic concentration camps.

I think qt widgets (not-qml, it's different and I haven't used it) uses XML without many of those problems.

Layouts are trees of widgets. Layouts are themselves widgets so repetition in the tree can be reduced.

You use XML, C++, or both to define a widget. The UI Compiler will turn that XML into C++.

That means further code reuse can leverage the C++ type system. All widgets are QWidgets, and MyProgressBar inherits from QScrollBar.

And you (or, at least I) never write .ui files by hand, they've got a GUI designer tool. And the tool supports your custom widgets by treating them the same as the known widget type it inherits from.

Accessing XML-defined widgets from code is the same as C++ defined widgets, because the compilation step means they are. Class member names come straight from the XML file.

The QObjects are constructed in a way that understands the UI hierarchy, and you can programmatically walk that hierarchy using the variable names. (You do have to tell objects their own names in the non-XML-generated code.)

>I’m confused when people in my generational cohort say [...]

Talk to them, and you'll realize they don't know what the fuck they mean either.

To generalize from my conversations, by "capitailism" they mean some amalgamation of: the fact they're poor, market forces in general, Government policy not providing certain goods/services, financial markets, non-post-scarcity, and snidely whiplash mustache twirling villains lurking in the wings.

But they also mean any aspect of society they don't like and can find a specious connection to market forces. Even if it's something that's just as possible under a communist/socialist government. It just wouldn't exist in their vision of Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism.

There's multiple factors at play, and the everybody-must-go-to-college bandwagon is certainly a big one.

I'd add a second one. It used to be the case that you could hire programmers without screening based on degrees. But that was back when programming was offputting and unappealing to anyone but nerds dedicated enough to become good at it.

Now STEM is hot in the collective conscious, programming is seen as a well paying job that's easier than becoming a doctor or lawyer, and corporate efforts are trying to recruit as many people into the candidate pool as possible.

>All I know is it has something to do with Monica questioning some new CoC changes (pronoun-related) and then being fired for "violating" the CoC before it was even ratified.

Pretty close. Monica blogged a timeline if you want even more reading. https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2019/10/05/stack-overflow-fias... And then these might be better entrypoints to what followed https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to... https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...

>It's very unclear to me what everyone's positions on this issue

Most people seem to care more about how StackExchange handled it and what it means for the future of contributing to SE sites. The way SE got rid of her, and the subsequent damage control has been a dumpster fire.

They're prepping to sell the company, and the shit communication skills are probably a deliberate not-so-subtle "fuck off" to any volunteers that have become more ingrained into the community than the free frontline staff SE wants.

That's the trend these days.

Tomorrow everyone on Hacker News and Twitter will go back to chiding IT departments that want the ability to test software changes before they get deployed, or have the ability to roll back.