lolsal

If you have "good" genes, presumably you had two parents both with desirable genes. I would imagine the pride comes from being proud of your parents each finding a procreation partner that had "good" genes.

Random chance and mutations are completely ignored of course.

How about "security patch/fix/update"?

I just can't believe any financial institution would underwrite a large business plan with no collateral but would not underwrite a mortgage for the same person when they could repo the house/property if the mortgage failed.

I have no problem personally getting a mortgage, but even with a fantastic business plan I wouldn't give myself $10M for a shipping startup.

Am I totally out of touch?

People can't get mortgages; I am skeptical that college dropouts could literally take out billions to create a shipping startup which is already a crowded space, without offering a significant value add, with no collateral or experience.

Following traffic laws is not a nuisance. Period.

It sounds like you romanticized homestead life if you find that lifestyle "soul crushing". As with many things, it's about the journey, not the destination.

If you expected to do homesteading stuff for a couple years and then 'retire' in some garden of eden, I suspect you are realizing that will never be the case. The homesteading life (or at least why I chose it myself) is about personal fulfillment in managing the land and animals, the DIY and semi-self-sustainable aspect of it and the freedom that comes with privacy and your own space.

Becoming truly self-sustaining and self-sufficient is incredibly difficult these days. Good luck to you.

I agree with your sentiment - longtermism as a term needs to be tempered with a dose of reality. When does longtermism become another word for "fantasy"?

Imagine if your CLI tools did this.

...so far.

> Lately I would rather have a scotch and 24 hour later have it out of my system, than live with a thin daily mental fog.

This was absolutely my experience and resulting opinion as well. Ultimately weed is not as harsh in the short term for me, but the cumulative effects over even a week of usage start to become apparent in my cognitive ability. It's a little insidious the way it creeps up on me. For that reason I don't partake nearly as often and have fallen back to enjoying alcohol in moderation myself.

I am an ignorant American; can you elaborate?

We're talking about paying rent online being a right or a privilege. It's not a natural right that should be protected or provided by the government.

You are welcome to try to make a point again without twisting my words if you'd like, if you can.

I know that you do not need an email for some of the things you mentioned. I doubt you need an email for the rest.

I don't think the change we need to make here is "everyone should require email for everything, and therefore we need government subsidized emails for everyone." If anything, the change should be "email is not required", because it's not.

Furthermore, these are not rights but privileges:

> buying virtually anything online > interacting with the government online (I needed to provide an email address to update my driver's license and vehicle registration) > opening a bank account > renting an apartment

I feel strongly the other things aren't rights either, but don't want to argue about it.

I imagine getting your representatives to author and pass legislation for this (which will include raising money to pay for it) will be met with more opposition than you think. I think this because I don't think it serves the public interest :)

Roads serve the public interest and have been legislated into existence at the federal level[1]. Your turn.

[1] - https://history.house.gov/Records-and-Research/Listing/lfp_0...

> The American government should provide their citizens with a small space of hosting to share their thoughts.

... why? What are you basing this on legally/morally other than your own want?

> Everyone deserves an e-mail address that cannot be taken away from them without a court order.

Why?

Meta has a moral/ethical cost as well as a branding tax.

> Why is it that popular browsers do not allow users to manually disable the behaviour that necessitates this workaround.

Probably the number of people that care about overriding this behavior could be counted on one hand.

> Is this another example of "tech" company paternalism.

No.

If you refuse to seek therapy, I would recommend reading about Mindfulness and practicing it.

> Pair programming or mobbing are a huge waste of resources.

Likely for some, but not all cases. Pair programming at my shop had a weird positive multiplier effect on velocity/delivery. It was optional and about half the team did it. Different folks work differently, we aren't all productive in the same ways.

in a child comment:

> Come on. Dismissing widespread problems as "not my problem, your problem" because it doesn't happen to affect you is so weak.

I think I didn't articulate my last comment well because you seem to misunderstand me.

I'm not saying it's not a problem and I'm not dismissing it at all. I'm saying it's not a problem that requires a societal or technological solution. I'm using my own experience as evidence for this. You can opt-out of all of this junk. I have; many others have. You already have all the tools you need to make this problem go away for yourself. Do you disagree? If so, what technological innovation, or societal evolution do you think would help you address this problem?

> No, society's adoption created this problem, not an individual.

I don't intend on dismissing your point with my next comment, only to offer it as an anecdotal data point: I don't have this problem, but I live in a society.

> Now we're getting somewhere, we agree it's a problem.

I'm saying it's your problem, not a societal or technological problem.

> Technology created this problem.

...No. Your adoption of technology/social media into every facet of your life created this problem.

I work in tech and I am not available when I'm not working. I don't participate in social media, but my social life is thriving during a pandemic.

> Choosing to not be available is effectively making yourself a social pariah if your social circle is otherwise highly available.

This sounds like a problem between you and your social circle. My circle doesn't make me feel like a pariah due to my availability. I suspect it has to do with me setting expectations and exercising discipline. You can do the same thing (though you might have to make changes to your social circle).

It's fine to lock down and dictate what a server can do. It's not fine to do that to free people in perpetuity.

Constant boosters, lockdowns, etc are burning lots of good will offered by people who originally opted to compromise personal liberty for the greater public good. It's getting old and the ROI of the compromise is getting smaller every day.

I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"

You don't need technology to solve this problem for you - you can choose not to be available.

Why is a nuanced perspective bullshit?

Can you explain what you mean? The link you provided shows over 150k deaths in the UK alone.

I thought I was just imagining this behavior. Humans are bad at 'random', but I swear when I randomly play my 300+ song playlist, I tend to hear the same 20-40 songs over a couple hours.