kerneloftruth

I'd love to see a study comparing the attention spans, anxiety level, and overall mental health of that 37% relative to the other 63%. They might be slightly less informed, but I'd bet significantly healthier (mentally).

California could easily build reservoirs, but they don't -- which makes the constant water fear mongering annoying. Reservoirs would capture much of the rainfall which isn't absorbed into ground water, and currently flows to the sea. The reservoirs would create new habitat for wildlife.... the downsides are few, if any.

Very good points -- the lack of any real training or preparation does raise an eyebrow. However, the lack of any real known involvement with the CIA provides it with cover. The context of the time could make it plausible: the Cold War was intense at the time. Find a young zealot who truly hated communism, and is willing to play spy. The CIA really had nothing to lose or fear, for if he's caught they can claim ignorance, and the PR angle will be that the evil Soviets captured an innocent tourist; if not, he might bring back useful info.

You're right -- I failed to mention the indeed biased bouncers. There was a real purge it seems, in fact, over the past few months, as a lot of names are now silent; and, the tone is now much more 'consistent' (echo chamber-ish).

Flagging/purging content is to me more acceptable than manipulation via suggesting/promoting, though, especially if the moderators are members. Maybe making this distinction is hair-splitting, though.

Shadow banning, on the other hand, is a disgusting technique. That seems like more a childish prank than a means of moderation, and only invites negativity (which is what was trying to be avoided, right?).

Overall, it's a pretty reliable source of links to good articles -- and some discussions.

There has indeed been defunding and redirecting funds to other purposes...and several cities have recently reversed course due to the uptick in crimes:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-de...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-leas...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/refund-the-police-cities-a...

https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2021/11/15/denver-refunds...

...and others easily searched.

Also, I'm leery of "There is only really one issue". The environment and climate are very real concerns, but a singular focus leads to zealotry and extremism -- which are discredits the cause(s) they're advocating. Anti-abortion activists learned that bombing clinics and assassinating doctors did not help their cause.

Sergey used to demand that the payload of the home page be tiny (I think it had to be < 100K, if I recall -- or maybe even smaller). That was part of the appeal of the simple search page, nothing but a logo and a search field. Now it looks minimal-ish, but contains a bunch of crap that serves only Google, not the end-user.

HN is like a party in a big room, where there are clusters of people having conversations. People mingle between the groups, dipping into and out of the conversations. There are no "connections" between people, and the site (thank God) doesn't "suggest" or promote anything to you based on some algorithmic analysis of your past expressions.

So long as the site acts only as the big room in which the party happens, it's benign. Once the room becomes an active participant and manipulator it becomes what is now a modern "social networking" site, and should be regarded as poison. At that point, leave for your own sake.

"The strength of activists, social change, and opposition movements seems to be decreasing around the world. The trend is reinforced by the seemingly old tactic of discrediting, deception, building mistrust among members, and disinformation spread by various political and state actors, who over the millennia perfected their methods."

Could the decrease in "strength" (i.e. interest and involvement by its participants) be possibly due to how unpopular the demands of the activists are to the general public? It seems the author has a very myopic view of the situation. People are seeing what "defund the police" leads to, and what their kids are being taught in schools -- they see it, and they're judging it, and their response is increasingly "NO". The democrats in the US see their polling numbers plummet, and are recognizing that pursuing the agenda demanded by the activists will take them out of power altogether.

The examples cited are COINTELPRO and the Soviet Stazi? Those were quite a long time ago, and not at all part of any suppression of today's activists. The article fails to mention that for the most part, "big tech" has supported opposition movements, and show clear bias against conservatives.

You should have been alive in the 1970s (maybe you were) when drunk driving was truly a slap-on-the-wrist offense. In 1980 came MADD, and though their ad campaigns were annoying -- they and other similar efforts were effective. Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities in the US has decreased 52%, while total traffic fatalities have declined 18%. Among persons under 21, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 83%.[1]

[1] https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/drunk-driv...

"Balko has advocated the abolition of laws criminalizing drunk driving, arguing that the "punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer"

That's such a naive and irresponsible, and frankly stupid, position to take. That's the first advocate for drunk drivers/driving I've ever heard of. I'll assume he wrote that for the "shock" value (i.e. click bait). I guess that makes him "remarkable", but not in a positive way.

Regarding the Little Rock police chief -- it sounds like race has nothing to do with it. Rather, sexual improprieties and personnel issues are what peoples' complaints are about. The Intercept is hardly a credible journal anymore (hear what its founder, Glenn Greenwald, has to say about it (https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald).

Yes, but those properties and components do not include race/skin color. Anybody of any race can be an asshole, true -- but bringing up their race turns the focus to that, and instantly separates and alienates.

A racist is the one who unnecessarily injects race into the conversation.

Interesting. That describes me for the past 20 years. But, I am going to turn 60 next year, and have decided that age 60-90 (God willing) will be different than age 30-60. Key in that is that I have returned to my original weed habits prior to age 30: none until evening time. So far, I'm _really_ liking the change. I still like weed, but I'm not allowing it (or anything) to have that much importance to me, and minimizing false 'dependencies' feels very refreshing.

That's only one key variable -- look also at what commercial flying has become (horrible): unruly passengers, mask mandates, flight attendants more authoritative (and understandably defensive) -- not to mention that people basically wear pajamas and sweat pants when they travel anymore.

I'm glad to see the new options becoming available. They might be much more expensive, but they'll be worth it to many (including myself).

Yes, that's the mentality. And, by "national interests", they mean "CCP interests" -- there's no distinction between "the party" and the nation.

You're right. That's been my argument against trusting "the cloud" (i.e. somebody else who actually own the computers on which you place all your precious trade secrets and personal business) for the past 15 years...ESPECIALLY when there is no clear agreement or customer/vendor relationship, and they're doing it for "free".

Drawing is not as essential, though, nor are musical talents or athletic abilities. The prerequisites for teaching should not include those, unless the person is to teach one of those fields. Language and STEM are foundational to learning and achieving in most every discipline.

I agree, and find it odd that such a view is unpopular. STEM is as foundational in the modern world as language is. And, yes, especially for teachers.

I went to University at a time when everyone was required, regardless of major, to take language and science classes.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulary_of_Marculf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_National_Formulary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulary_Book_of_Somogyv%C3%A...

As it seems you approve of heavy-handed authoritarian means for handing a virus, why not for handling terrorism? I get the impression that to many Australians, "freedom" means freedom from risk, and loss of liberty is quite acceptable, making Franklin's famous quote so relevant (again): Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

White boards are fine for design ideas with boxes and arrows etc. We're talking about being asked to write code on a white board.

I've walked out on a couple of interviews when they tried whiteboard coding. I politely laughed and said I really don't do performance art. I thanked them for their time and left.

Cause and effect is more likely than a grand conspiracy. Reduction in police, reducing felonies to misdemeanors, eliminating bail have indeed taken root... and as was predictable, crimes have increased.

The experiment failed, and it's now time to clean up the mess and resume normal order.

Sincerely: regard it as a blessing, and embrace being free of Facebook. There are indeed alternatives to communicating with others.

Yes, political censorship is often called "fact checking". Facebook invented nothing new, and the sin is them trying to convince us otherwise. The increased censorship has been demanded by the Democrats, and Facebook is obeying.

The same term is used for cattle. I guess species at the top of the food chain choose the terms of art. I wouldn't be surprised, though, to learn that the monkeys have their own sound/ utterance to mean the killing of people.

Apples and Oranges.

Inheritance has nothing to do with meritocracy. One can argue about whether or how much inheritance should be taxed -- but that's a wholly separate, topic.

Hiring, raises, and promotions should not be based on skin color, eye color, gender, or other immutable traits. In a meritocracy, these are instead determined _solely_ by how provably capable a person is (per Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s prescription).

In fact, Meritocracy _would_ explicitly reject the idea of "inheriting" a job (as is done in orgs with nepotism), so I'm confused as to what your point is.

I would suggest that you keep studying life. From what I've learned: life was never promised as being fair. Civilization is a thin veneer over the Jungle, but it does try (without ever achieving 100% success), to provide fairness. One can debate where in the world Civilization is thriving vs. struggling (it's mostly struggling). Meritocracy does exist and does work, except where it is undermined (i.e. "Equity", or assigning merit based on immutable physical traits like race and gender).

In my years consulting for companies in their traditional IT departments, what you describe is all too common -- and utterly depressing.

Since, however, moving into the embedded systems space, I rarely see this kind of scenario, anymore. I see it as the effect of the commoditization of IT skills, coupled with the mundaneness of the kinds of software produced in typical IT shops. It's a sign of maturity (which to me had the stench of death).

I'm grateful to now (10 years+) working with deeper-skilled engineers, and getting to work on truly new products and technologies.

My advice is to embrace the discomfort you're feeling about yourself -- change is definitely indicated. Seize the day.