604 karma · joined April 1, 2017
I fantasize about buying a house and find it outrageous that most of the houses I would want to buy are nearly 100 years old. Anything since has been very cheaply constructed and designed for a strange lifestyle that seems to prioritize individual greed. To me, my home is second to my neighborhood and this should result in smaller homes which make for a walkable and neighborly surrounding. What was going on in these greedy baby-boomers minds? They are like aliens to me.
There seems to be a reason the labor movement has squandered since the rise of the Military Industrial Complex, and what’s what I’m speaking to.
The true cost would have to entail proportions of the human, social, monetary, and environmental investments in self-driving technology. Manufacturing labor abuse in China and other low-wage hardware sources, the labor issues at Tesla, the abuse scandals, including side effects and aftermath at Uber, techsploitation at large, raising rents in tech hub cities like Bay Area, SF, NYC, associated family separations, including homelessness and related social program ceilings, taxes not paid by these giant corporations fueling the “innovation”, privacy invasions by Google, of which the extents will never be known.
It’s amazing how limited tech workers tend to be when it comes to performing systemic analysis at the societal level.
At the end of the day, millions of people would have more security and stability and happiness in their lives without this pace of technological discovery. At the end of the day, there are some things that should take a higher priority. I’ll assert mutual dignity is one of them.
But mainly, technical work is just different in nature. It’s a lot more competitive and the hierarchy is more fluid. There’s not an obvious floor like there is with factory workers, where there are a few managers and administrators for hundreds of workers. And the work is almost never manual. Technical workers are also constantly concerned with implementation and that sh were their attention goes. I don’t ever see this actually happening.
I know
Unless you’re using Houdini, I think you’ll get the same result using Redshift with 16 threads. Houdini is the only DCC that uses more than one thread to prep the scen
The spec thing makes a lot of sense. The project I’m learning with is not ideal because the test environment takes a moment to boot but it’s peculiar and challenging me to consider real-world scenarios, which may or may not be a good thing but I’m near wrapping it up. It’s a plug-in for a few different content creation softwares.
I would say I knew what I was building, but there have been unknowns about which particular approach will meet my standards and still be DRY. They all worked great with prototypes but I discovered some edge cases late in construction. I found TDD very satisfying but now I have an instinctual doubt about it.
Your thoughts make a lot of sense. I guess one of the main things will do next time is avoid all the extra unit testing I did early on. I think I was honestly having too much fun. Someone should do research on if automated test coverage illicits the slot-machine effect.
And to your reasoning for it’s importance, it’s quite optimistic to think it would have made a.difference but nonetheless every bit would have been worth the effort. What a nightmare!
More so, this idea of TDD seems a little ridiculous so far, and structural testing is why, but I wonder if this is just becuse I’m going through a period of wanting to refactor a lot while building something.
TDD is clearly appropriate for adding features, but when architecting central components, I think it’s cost me a lot of time. Some of that time is writing and verifying extra tests but most of it is reviewing a mountain of tests each time I modify architecture.
Is this just a learning phase? Or is there a long-term lesson to learn here?
There’s a spectre that haunts Western pyshology which allows for the set of thus considered “scientific” checkboxes to be marked, which are sufficient for the physical sciences. But, physically speaking, the physical sciences are child’s play compared with the material subject of psychology, which is fairly undebatable. On the other hand, the same could be said for the physical sciences at certain points in time, and still to say in particular focuses. So what’s my point??
Psychology as it has so far been instituted in the western world cannot observe, define, or much less control the entropy it contends with. Critical theory, political theory, economics, poetics, cultural studies; truly the entire fields of humanities have a more comprehensive understanding of this entropy than the field of psychology does. Why? Because it cannot. It’s too much. Psychology can “scientific method” it’s heart out all it wants, but it remains to be seen that this method is even the best we’ve got. Mind you again that psychology cannot control for social entropy, and what but it can (debatable) falls off a cliff outside of the lab.
When we speak of social entropy, we cannot ignore politics; the scorpion’s tail of the entire effort which understandably ignores an effort to define either entropy or control but instead blindly accepts the human environment of contemporary ‘normal’ as the aim for dictating constants. This is of course ridiculous, and doing otherwise would be no less so. As such, it’s hard to blame the folks trying, but should be far easier to see how moot their effort is. The humanities has achieved a far more enlightened critique of the field of psychology than the field itself has even begun to. Sociology embraces the entropy whole-hearted and as such admits doubt and is politically marginalized (or privatized) accordingly. The approach of psychology in these respects is again understandable, but if the physical sciences were accused of something at all similar, we would all be up in arms.
On a separate note, the measurable issues with the institutional politics undermining western psychology are however similar to those at play in psysical sciences, but the vaguaries and innate necessity of ignorance in pursuing the task serve as multipliers to corruption. Where to even begin? It’s just too much.
To conclude, the effort in calling is certainly worthy and noble. But, the effort in practice is terribly fraught; deserves loads more criticism and caution than it receives. If the scientific method could be performed in scope (as one might say it is in the humanities) western psychogy remains in hypothetical stages. There’s cause for a few toasts, but not a celebration.
The subject of the essay is correlation of stately statistical categories. The entire discussion remains purely in the abstract, and by this I mean the categories in question are abstract and the correlated heirarchies are abstract on every level. To take any issue with this in utility or morality would be to take issue with theoretical analysis itself. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are not intending to do that.
I have been sleeping better for years but it causes me to have to perform the morning and evening transitions twice as often.
EDIT: I guess the thread is too deep but I can’t reply. By “transitions” I just mean all the stuff I do between doing the stuff that occupies me. It’s common that I find another problem and start compulsively trying to fix that instead of getting back to work on the thing I would rather be doing. When I work in an office it’s not really an issue but I am trying to develop patterns that allow me to not work in an office, mostly for career progression. I want to work in a different industry and can only get freelance work in it for now.
I also tend to find I ultimately fix my own problems in my own way, but finding corrolaries can be useful in the decisions of what to try next.
I have always been obsessed with humanities, art, art theory, art history, etc. and have had to internalize this almost entirely. It’s hard to articulate all the problems I have had related to this but they all seem to boil down to an issue of an intensely systemized approach at pretty much every level. For one example, I started out making films, but that was short-lived because I had zero interest in working with people or actors. I was very good with camera and lighting, and planning in pre-production. My film projects were always completed in my mind and fully documented before the start of production. This drove collaborators nuts. I could always see the film in my mind so it made no sense to leave things to chance. I didn’t realize that was the problem until much later. I did identify my habit of using actors as mere props but I made the mistake of trying to overcome that and it led to giving the wrong impression of my skills. Things like navigating curation and promotion were a challenge but making good work generally cancelled them out. Nonetheless, still too many people skills required. Relatedly, I also love critical theory and articulating social organization. I cannot discuss or collaborate with other academics on these subjects. It’s not a problem with disagreements, but that I cannot tell whether they are actively being self-centered or just lack conception of systematic imperatives. In return, they find me to lack empathy for whatever is right in front of me. As such, I don’t want to judge them but I am too bothered to continue associating. All of this stuff is harmful to my well-being but letting the problems go unsolved is not an option, so I aim to occupy myself with other things. I do programming now, every day, whether I am getting paid or not.
My happiest moments are when I can fully immerse myself in activities of technical implementation and technical problem solving, as I do when I am programming. My whole body becomes healthier and happier, but the moment I am not doing that, I compulsively identify social chaos and get anxiety. This is a problem in the mornings and evenings. I can get thrown off easily and it will interrupt my ability to start working or going to sleep. I identified this a long time ago and my first solution was to just not stop working once I started, and only sleep when my body forced me to, but that was of course problematic. I have to ask: do you experience something similar? Is there anything you do about it?
If you can’t make enough to live on otherwise, by all means milk the benefits. I’ll say it.
It’s tough to blame them. Surely awareness is lacking but even if it isn’t, we’ve got a system in which your own well-being depends on being part of a social circle. The economics of associating one’s self with issues which are themselves associated with low-income or low-popularity is not seen as an option.
On top of that, there is virtually unlimited liberal political funding for virtue signaling because it’s a very indirect way to signal compassion without economic action to back it up. This plays really well to middle and upper class people and in-turn lower class people seeking to mingle with higher classes adopt the behavior.
The fact of the matter is that freedom of expression is massively contingent on economic security; and at some point even moreso than education. Socialized securities are America’s greatest hope at the moment.
Recommended reading: Mark Fisher, Pierre Bourdieu
Recommended voting: DSA-endorsed
I am most familiar with Das Kapital. The ‘means’ are a big part of Volume I, more so as it progresses if I remember right, and his main focus in that volume is the capitalist mode, which prioritizes the means. Volume III (written by Engels) goes deeper into the wider system of modes; elaborating on how modes function in general, and this is where the acceleration concept is asserted more formally.
I am no economist and maybe that’s why but I find the modes discussion in Volume III the most interesting, whether his economic stuff is correct or not, his breakdown of modes seems almost more like anthropology. I mean, I don’t know how people would ever understand us in the future without understanding this in some form or another.
Anyhow, sorry I don’t have the legal info you’re after. I wishe you luck.
[1] Looks really good but only one light source and barely even a bounce of light. Nice backlight halo, but that’s not ray-tracing.
[2] Obviously a lot going on here and some progress of some sort but if only all the reflections weren’t so blurry. What’s up with that?
[3] 99% of what makes this scene look good is the PBR texture tuning. This lighting does not look good and nothing is moving. Very few reflections and small but they do look proper.