frankish

I think there is always going to be diversity in how humans choose to live. Just like the Amish, whom have neglected much modern technology in their world, there will always be cultures that choose a different path. Some will want to never leave Earth, avoid the Matrix for the real world and experiences, not want to become a cyborg, etc. Diversity of opinion really is beautiful and is the modern evolution.

Edit: and some will want to dedicate their lives to the expansion of life throughout the universe

> Maybe for a serious job offer.

If I'm not looking, then I don't want to be contacted for job offers. Regardless, there are more appropriate channels like LinkedIn where I explicitly go regarding jobs.

> Somebody secretly in love with you.

Would you actually take such a person seriously? This is probably exactly who I want blocked as a phisher.

> Somebody admiring your content, and wanting to publish it in a book.

Good. Let them prove they want to invest in me by paying to contact me. That way I can trust a little more that they're not trying to con me.

I think it is also worth pointing out a couple solutions to these problems that Earn.com had:

> If you're a friend of mine, click below to request a spon on my whitelist. Your emails will get through as normal.

> If I don't know you, go ahead and send me a paid message. You'll only pay if you get a response.

I do miss being able to use Xmonad, but definitely checkout Amethyst[0] if using MacOS.

[0]: https://ianyh.com/amethyst/

I do not know much about burning plastic, but is it really zero drawbacks to do so? Intuition tells me harmful chemicals would be released. Is it that the burning would be contained and the air filtered?

You can also use washable towels to pat dry.

Yes! Also logging just about everything and then being able to query your own data in objective ways.

I'm skeptical of that second video. Looks like the woman screaming (also not wearing a mask) was not being arrested. There were also a suspiciosly high number of professional cameramen and cops there for just not wearing a mask...

I lean towards believing that such age restrictions have a counter-effect: causing youth to be less prepared and abuse what is restricted after finally being allowed. For example, more binge drinking in the US compared to other countries with lower age restrictions.

I think properly informing/educating youth is a better solution. Treating them as some other entity not worthy of rights will not lead to a productive solution.

Found https://www.youthfacts.org/?page_id=92407 which has additional supporting arguments in the matter.

This pretty much sums up my sentiment as well. I think people should comment their disagreement instead of downvote. Others can then upvote the response, but at least dialogue can remain open.

I've actually considered using a screenname like commentdontdownvote lol.

First and foremost, I strongly believe in educating or encouraging, but am strongly against forcing/coercing.

A big part is likely just normalizing that it is okay not to have kids: in particular, there is so much social pressure to have them. There is also significant government incentive for a population to grow both for the economy and for retirement programs like Social Security.

I do think the best thing we can do is live by example. We can choose not to have kids. Additionally, being heavily involved with helping our friends or families that have kids may be beneficial as well: not just babysitting, but helping get them curious and engaged in school, save for their higher education, or ensuring the mental well-being of the family in general.

I do not want to take away any positives from having kids; however, I do think we should strongly consider whether we would actually be good parents and if we would be able to prepare them to live in a world where the bar is raising exponentially. Even if we find fulfillment in children, I question if it is really the best option for them in the long-term or if we may be selfish in our desires to have them.

I think shrinking population is one thing I would like to see. Until we start moving to other planets, I do not see the benefits of a growing population. Many people still live in poverty and lack a good education, which I believe parenting has the most influence on.

I will try not to complain about my parents, but one of the big side-effects is that I do not want kids and have had a vasectomy to prevent that. Not the only reason, but a relevant one.

I think more people should choose not to have kids and our societies/governments should stop pushing so hard to have more due to traditional values or so economies can grow. It is time for us to focus on quality and not quantity. I think we are approaching 8 billion people in this world: not only is this not sustainable, but we could be better raising our children by having fewer.

Why does this relate to this topic? Because of the concept that many feel they were raised poorly. The people that should not be having kids usually do. One of the reasons I do not want kids is because I do not think I will do a good job. Instead, I think I can better support my friends that want to raise kids. If I feel I'm finally prepared to take on the responsibility, then I like to think I would force myself to adopt. Regardless, I think we could iteratively improve parenting by encouraging (never forcing) those that are mentally prepared to do so.

I think educated, younger generations are already having fewer kids, but guess I wanted to shine light on the good side of this.

    Instead, these bits of banana (galaxies) getting pushed along and pushed farther apart because the break (space) is expanding between them.

This sounds a lot like an explanation to dark energy, but really breaks my understanding of our universe expanding at an accelerated rate[0].

[0]: https://www.iflscience.com/space/why-universe-accelerating/

I believe Markor[0] might satisfy your needs of having a TODO.txt editor that has no sync capabilities. I have to use in combination with Dropsync[1] to sync my notes.

Admittedly, I only use Markor for my plaintext notes and rely on Todo.txt[2] for my TODO.txt needs, which is still maintained and has syncing builtin.

[0]: https://gsantner.net/project/markor.html

[1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ttxapps.dr...

[2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.c306.ttsup...

To your point, Dan Price recently posted some related stats and perspective:

> Minimum wage

> Costco: $16

> Walmart: $11

>

> Average pay

> Costco: $24

> Walmart: $15

>

> Employees on food stamps (subsidized by you)

> Costco: Virtually none

> Walmart: More than any other company

>

> Founder net worth

> Costco: not a billionaire

> Walmart: $220+ billion; up $30 billion in the pandemic

>

> Both companies have similar business models and charge the same low prices. One decided to treat its employees like humans and forgo enormous profits, and the other one took the opposite track.

>

> Business is about choices.

I highly recommend https://libro.fm/ as an alternative.

Feel I should add https://libro.fm/ for audiobooks, since missing from that list.

I strongly empathize. I usually wait a few seconds, then just flash my high beams for most situations.

This is a very interesting perspective.

Though, I think technology is the big differentiating factor between movies and books. The quality of CGI, special effects, resolution, cameras, etc. are constantly improving and I think a significant portion of the younger demographic fails to appreciate older movies due to the obvious age of the films. There just isn't much evolution in how books are consumed or written. Digital books make them more accessible, but are not exclusive to new releases.

Other than technology, I think marketing and name recognition are the primary factors for selecting both movies and books because of a popularity bias. New media is heavily marketed and will likely still receive a lot more consumption.

Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile. It's not that it's just a mask, it's potentially a small step towards seizing our freedoms.

I agree that it does seem a bit irrational when just focusing on masks, but not necessarily when we take all of the response to COVID-19 that we've seen so far. The goalposts have consistently been moving, so I don't find it unreasonable that people want to rebel against more coercion.

I still hold to my principle that it is better to inform people of the facts and lead by example. Mandates will alienate people and force an underground/blackmarket of activities and ideas.

IMO decentralization and competition are the only way to get the bad actors to occasionally do good.

I think one of the reasons people won't wear masks is because they're mandated. Many are worried in the short-term about the spread of COVID-19, but after we come out of it the government has more power. I think it's important to understand and respect that other people have different priorities. In this case, the US was born out of fighting tyranny and that is a bigger concern to some because a tyrannical government could lead to more suffering and death than caused by COVID-19.

I liken it to the war on drugs, which used fear-mongering and propaganda to convince people that drugs are bad and that we need to lock up people that are making decisions regarding their own bodies and minds. Instead of educating people on the unbiased pros/cons of recreational and medical drug use, so that people are actually informed about the decisions they're making. Instead, we have a war on drugs that is fueled by corruption and labels non-violent offenders as criminals.

When it comes to the pandemic, there is a similar approach of fear-mongering and forced coercion. Those that refuse to wear a mask may just be people that have everyone's interest in mind because they believe they are rebelling against government trying to get more power, which they think is worse in the long-term.

I respect the mask requirements when, for example, entering the grocery story, but I also feel uncomfortable by the forced coercion, re-goalposting, and increase in government power. I believe the best approach forward is setting a good example and informing people on all aspects of the facts without bias.

> Tim Dixon, co-founder of More in Common and co-author of the report, said that while there had been an increase in “culture war” politics in Britain, the country was far better placed to avoid further divisions than many other nations: “Both sides of a culture war rely on exaggerating the threat of the other,” he said. “Both sides want us to think that every person who is ‘on the other side’ to them has all these opposing views. The truth is many of these debates just pass most people by, because they are often based on creating false choices.The UK is actually in a better position than many countries and should be more optimistic.

It was a very sour taste in my mouth after reading this paragraph near the end and then seeing the exaggerated threats to garner donations.

> America faces an epic choice ... > ... in the coming weeks, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last four years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. > > The country is at a crossroads. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance – and with it, the future of abortion and voting rights, healthcare, climate policy and much more. Science is in a battle with conjecture and instinct to determine policy in the middle of a pandemic. At the same time, the US is reckoning with centuries of racial injustice – as the White House stokes division along racial lines. At a time like this, an independent news organization that fights for truth and holds power to account is not just optional. It is essential. > > Like many news organizations, the Guardian has been significantly impacted by the pandemic. We rely to an ever greater extent on our readers, both for the moral force to continue doing journalism at a time like this and for the financial strength to facilitate that reporting. > > We believe every one of us deserves equal access to fact-based news and analysis. We’ve decided to keep Guardian journalism free for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This is made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers across America in all 50 states. > > As our business model comes under even greater pressure, we’d love your help so that we can carry on our essential work. If you can, support the Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

I think setting an example and keeping to your principles is the right approach. Naivety won't go away, but things will continue to improve in the long run.

I'm still for global, open markets; just not central government. Competition and differing views/ideas are extremely beneficial and this highlights an example of why.

IMO globalization is dangerous because it's putting all our eggs in one basket. We have it beyond good on the US compared to most places in the world.. And we still managed to have Trump, Hillary, and Biden be our presidential choices in these 2 elections. All it takes is one bad idea or leadership that takes the helm of an entire world government instead of several countries keeping each other in check and having different ideas/philosophies. I worry people actually want to be ruled by a king/monarch/dictator. I wish people would stop putting so much emphasis on the federal government and focus on local community politics. Higher level government should do less, not more.

Not to say that competition isn't also relevant, but I think locality is still necessary for osmosis of ideas/thoughts.

I think both Marijuana and gay marriage legalization started because of a small group of like-minded people that found it acceptable and were able to spread that ideology enough so that eventually the state could vote on them. For those particular examples, competition doesn't really kick in until it's already been experimented with, but then it really speeds up the spread for sure.

Looking at the timeline of cannabis laws [1], recreational use in particular, Colorado basically tipped the ice berg. My point is that the organic spread of new and/or controversial ideas is localized before competition kicks in.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cannabis_laws_in_t...

You nailed it. Admittedly only listened to him on JRE, but I strongly agree with this concept.

This is why I'm frustrated with the idea that we need to enact change and policies at the federal level. The federal government should just exist to protect our liberties and organize national defense. Everything else should be organized more locally at the community level where voters actually have some skin in the game.

It's the same idea as how modern agile companies run, small teams that work in the same environment, have more empathy/trust of one another, and are able to make compromises in order to have stability and direction within the team.

Additionally, we shouldn't be trying to put all of our eggs in one basket. Should we have single-payer healthcare nationally? No one knows if that's the most appropriate solution for all of the US, but why not let cities or communities try various localized healthcare strategies out for themselves. Each may try things differently. Some may work and some may fail. Other places can see how things worked elsewhere and either decide to improve, not implement, or take verbatim what another local government has done. You influence change by setting an example and letting others decide for themselves, not by trying to force the world to behave as a small subset of people want.

Having multiple baskets is essential for enabling different ideas and perspectives, especially if the bad ideas were to win out. I firmly believe humans are not meant to have such large scale societal structures where communities are expected to encompass an entire nation. You care more about and think more similarly to your neighbor than you do someone three thousand miles away.

I think the focus is more on a masculine (A) vs feminine (B) divide rather than sex. It's just that the majority of men lean towards more masculinity than femininity and vise versa for women. I find this aspect to be very essential to the topic at hand, which I believe to be the societal pressures to pick one of the sides and abandon individual thought.