10,158 karma · joined August 1, 2017
Shame the brakes are so selective, as well. Suddenly the friction all disappears when it comes to data centers.
Pretty good video showing just a few of the examples through history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdAmhumeoLQ
The real legwork is on "what are these institutions, customs, ans values we want to preserve"? And if you dig deep into US history, you realize that such benefits from traditional values were not equally distributed. So it's rather easy for me to reject the philosophy in this context of the US.
That simplicity is also why conservatism can be said to have no true convictions nor aspirations. It's in the name: it exists to look in the past, see what things are there, and say "I want these things!". But there's a lot of "things" in the past, so this philosophy could be extended to include practically anything. I could say "taxing the rich" is a conservatism perspective and simply point to corporate tax code from the 40's-70's.
So that's a long-winded means of saying that this quote is surprisingly accurate, at least for my country, when looked through the lens of history (the very lens conservatism uses).
Now granted, modern US Democrats are not pure liberals. But on the purely opposite spectrum, it rejects this notion. At least in theory.
We copyright knowledge all the time, what do you mean? Those are called patents.
>I thought we were supposed to be hackers. Information wants to be free and all that.
Yes, hence why I'm baffled people are fine with billion dollar companies DDOSing the internet so they can contain knowledge in a black box. And literally destroying some knowledge in the process.
I guess "hackers" also gladly give up freedom for a bit of convenience when it suits them.
Fortunately this is very slowly starting to crack. Maybe not from social pressure as it deserves, but litigation is finally starting to catch up with the tech and some recent court rules have started putting some simple yet major compromises on Meta. We're talking "need to remove likes" levels of major.
I think these are still in appeal (or have already settled), but I'm keeping a close eye on this.
I guess it's just a generational thing, but my late Gen X mother was simply busy. Army drills twice a month will do that. I also concur with other responses that these were all social events anyway, so it's not like I was yearning for Mom to be there.
Most my family is scattered. Screens can be connecting. But it doesn't replace local connection and my experience seems more to delay the inevitable drifting away of such relations due to distance. I suppose it at least tests how much your loved ones care to keep in contact with you.
All that said: I don't do it myself, but I don't judge people who choose to mask up regularly when going out in public. It's a semi-normal thing in Asian communities, and I have two close (non-Asian) friends who do it. If nothing else, COVID de-stigmatized that practice here in the US.
1. People work more. In particular, the shift to dual-income households means that women, who traditionally planned most parties before, no longer have time.
2. the shift to "lots of kids, sparse parenting" to "few kids, lots of investment" becomes another time sink focusing families inwards on themselves instead of outwards on the wider community
3. People just have less friends. especially so for a) single b) non college-degree and c) lower-income people. Probably due to #1 and the whole dating app epidemic no one has had a serious conversation about yet.
4. And yes, as you alluded to, it is "more fun to be alone" in the modern day. Less incentive to go out if you don't "feel" lonely nor bored.
I guess I could have just quoted the provided summary, but where's the fun in that?
>In sum: The death of the host is the story of lonely unmarried people and harried married dual-earner households; anxious parents spending more time with their children and less time with friends; and the typical home becoming such a riot of diverting comfort that people no longer have to invite human beings to interrupt their boredom.
But it is much cheaper. And Gen Z by necessity is more price sensitive than other generations.
Since we're at the legal stage, I hope we can finally get to a stage where such algorithms are treated as seriously as cigarettes. But society moves slowly, because the powers that profit from this pay to push back on regulation.
Alcohol tax would have been a simpler and much less destructive means of achieving such a goal, but I guess breweries can't lobby when everything else is collapsing too.
Make it the bottom 70% AI vs. the bottom 10% human if you want to. You're still going to be well within a sea of AI-slop because the volume is that large. The big thing about bad human code is that it tends to still be compact; I can read in some minutes the intention and what does(n't) work.
For each vibe-coded project I gotta do a tiny expedition just to get the basic idea of what's going on. let alone figuring out if things actually work as intended.
And yes, it is indeed because he's a billionaire actively shaping a worse society. Not because it's okay to make fun of impediments when it's on rich people.
I don't know about you, but I sure didn't have my life set at 18.I could have easily been a mechanical or electrical engineer if my alma mater rejected me. And that was more focused than most students.
It pretty much means what it says on the tin. Before hoisting an 18yo with the sudden responsibility of an adult, show them what lies beyond their GED. That's not just limited to college; there's many more roads out there and seeing what options motivate you can let you try to specialize while you're still in your prep phase.
That's precisely why some student go into a major undeclared or even take a gap year after graduating. No one gave them that exploratory transition time, so some make it for themselves.
I don't think it's shocking to realize that most 20 year olds (especially those growing up and seeing that success is not tied to intelligence nor hard work at all)are taking advantage of a convenient tool to cheat when given the chance.
That's because we write much smaller quantities of code than we read. Not that LoC is a useful metric, but I'd be surprised if I write more than a few hundred lines a code a day in a legacy codebase. Most of the time is spent planning and deliberating over what to write, and perhaps revising code a few times. Meanwhile, understanding what a snippet of code does can easily spiral into having you read thousands of lines of code across several modules.
But that's for work. writing is a stronger learning tool than reading, and we needed to write tens of thousands of lines of code before we got into the door and started reading more than we wrote. It's still preferable for students to do the same and write as much for their homework as possible.
Explaining that paradigm shift from learning to working isn't trivial, and is often poorly done. But it's needed if we ever want people to frame these tools as productivity boosters, and not shortcuts through tedium. Learning by its nature involves some tedium.
2. We're also actively giving them less paths in life to begin with. How many high school grads @ 18 will find any job whatsoever without additional school/training, and how else will they afford housing with zero income? The military is the only consistent employer at that age, and the only one who'd provide shelter with the deal.
3. On top of all that, it's in university's best interests to keep 1) and 2) the way they are. Their incentives start at recruitment, and end at enrollment. Past keeping them in college for 4-6 years, they do not care about performance, post-grad job placement, nor societal wellbeing. And part of that is due to a lack of pressure in the recruitment stage to make universities focus on such metrics. Turns out a fancy new gym is a cheaper investment.
As the other reply said, it really comes down to "hang out with them outside of work". Not often, just enough that you know more about the person than what's related to the job. Working colleagues already work with you so they can speak to your technical skill.
Outside of work colleague, you gotta meet people. So find soke tech communities locally or some FOSS projects you can contribute to.
In any case, it's a slow process and stuff rarely happens immediately. It's something best to do when you don't need a job.
we do indeed live in a low trust society as of now.
Well, no. Because we abandoned the idea of fostering talent. We instead insist natural talent exists who will swoop in, be productive in our proprietary systems day one, and outdo all the pathetic engineers who spent years at the company. Almost like we're drafting for a sports team instead of training a workforce.
But at least sports teams spend time making teams feel like teams.
Well there it is. Suggestions don't matter if there's no one in power who cares. Have them care and suddenly we'd be able to get people hired in 2-4 weeks.
Otherwise it's not rocket science. And you're not hiring rocket scientists. It shouldn't take more than 3 stages to know if a candidate can do the job:recruiter screen, main interview, negotiation meeting. If you need more people in the know, they join on the main day. If they can't, it clearly isn't important enough for their scope of responsibilities (does a skip manager 3 levels up really need to personally meet a candidate?)