matrix87

> The academics believe the music helps swamp the brain’s ability to present counter-arguments, making the message more persuasive to the listener. Deploying strong narratives to accompany a particular message, including characters and rich description, is another way of overwhelming the brain’s ability to battle back against spurious claims, prior research has shown.

You know what's even better than this? Meeting people on the same level instead of seeing them as animals that need to get herded around. But this isn't new, we've been saying this for a while now. Condescension is politically toxic. This whole tone and method of delivery is a proven failure. It's probably easier for these people to lose on election day than meet voters where they are, because ego matters more here than winning

I feel like these calls to unionize aren't trying to improve working conditions for tech workers, they're just trying to find ways to politically capture tech companies

That's why, you know, most of the people who call to unionize are left wing progressives who don't work in tech (and a large number in the bay area resent the shit out of tech)

Frankly given their attitudes towards meritocracy, "social justice", etc, I don't really trust these groups to actually negotiate a better deal for me. I'd expect them to just use the leverage I give them to screw me over. Go on Alphabet Workers Union's website and this is the exact shit you'll see

They probably target tech specifically because they think we aren't "class conscious" enough to understand our own situation. That's why they don't go and bother the finance industry, those guys know where they're sitting economically

You can't really use statistics to determine for me what's an issue to me. It's pretty subjective. That's not reactionaryism, that's me as a voter doing a cost benefit analysis. Which frankly is the only rational way to vote

Frankly I think this insistence that people vote against their own self interest more reactionary than the alternative. Like insisting that people reject sense for nonsense. Religion essentially

> What are your solutions to these issues?

I don't see issues, I see "issues". What people have done to solve them is a bigger issue for me than what they're trying to solve. E.g. affirmative action, another cute euphemism

> you haven't said anything that indicates people on the left support it

It's common knowledge? The summary left position in the US is to give a path to legal status, it creates a moral hazard that incentivizes more illegal immigration. And the typical rhetorical strategy is to try to play dumb or downplay that this will happen

> it's a major issue in the EU, for example.

Which, for the most part (e.g. Germany, the one in the news right now) is legal immigration

Oh I should've said "ideologues" instead of "ideologes". Namely, the people who keep hammering this shit in newspapers

But to address your points

> human rights of LGBT people

Most of the contention here is around the T. I don't really have an opinion. I'm not changing my voting pattern because of such a small demographic

> protection of women from sexual abuse and coersion

And now we're living in the world of guilty until proven innocent. E.g. donglegate. Enough is enough

> justice for minorities

Which in practice means officially racist and sexist policies directed towards white and Asian men because they're considered "less favorable" demographics. I think the fundamentally dishonest way this issue in particular is framed is enough to completely delegitimize anything else they're saying. Consider me a single issue voter on this issue moving forward

> For example, "unhinged illegal immigration' is a characterization of the right

Well, it's technically illegal, right? And compared to other Western countries who actually have borders, it's technically unhinged. "Undocumented migrants" - what does this mean? It's just a dishonest euphemism that tries to legitimize the situation

> At the end of the day I expect the quality of discourse to dip

I expect it to stay exactly the same

It was already like this before, it's just afaik the pillars weren't publicly acknowledged

What were the previous pillars? Social justice and progressive ideology. "Diversity of opinion" matters now all of sudden?

From where I sit, every time the left does something e.g. affirmative action, unhinged illegal immigration, or some other woke thing, they try to soften it, deny it outright, or change the subject, similar to what you're doing

I agree with GP, prior to today's ouster the implicit pillars were social justice, feminism, metoo, mental health, or LGBT. Pretty much every piece of media coming out of these institutions has been consistently cramming this worldview down people's throats since around 2017. Whatever this shit is, I'd rather just hear billionaire propaganda and see every one of these ideologes get canned

And I don't consume right wing news either, I've been reading the NYT for the past 5 years and that alone was enough to convince me things need to change

Government funding education != Government managing education

hypothetically, if you sign a noncompete where they're enforceable and resign (without disclosing anything to anyone), how would they even know where you're going or have the basis for a lawsuit?

maybe they'd know with execs where their occupation is public, but for line employees it just seems like a scare tactic. I kind of doubt they're going to drop thousands of dollars on a lawsuit because some associate SWE hops from amazon to microsoft

I just can't take the people who fall for these seriously

Not just the money part, but the whole online-only "long distance relationship" thing. Why would you spend hours investing your time in someone if there's no immediate plan for it to turn physical (doesn't even have to be sexual)?

It's a thing I see redditors talking about like it's normal or something

I just got done interviewing with a big tech company and a successful outcome, I really don't understand how someone could even pull that shit off in an interview. It sounds harder than just doing it the honest way

I wonder, relatively speaking, how much turnover happens because of reorging

I just went through a similar thing but decided to gtfo to a different company

after a certain point about 6 months ago, I made a ublock origin filter that excludes all of those posts, just got too annoying for me personally

24M, don't want kids. not going to marry (if no kids, why fuck yourself?). sex is fun but not fun enough to make me consider any of the previous things

A bunch of our social activities center around families or dating (and dating culture is just a precursor for marriage for most people)

I'm genuinely convinced (as a young man) that the reason why people are "upset" about us being alone is because they'd rather screw us into arrangements that benefit them. It's just manipulation disguised as concern

But supposing this happens across the economy, there's less inflation. E.g. if housing costs track tech salaries and soak up most of the surplus available, the relative wealth gained/lost is hard to predict

Layoffs are just a symptom. Overhiring and easy money are the cause. Companies aren't there to "take care of you", they aren't welfare departments

They hired a bunch of people who took the money for granted, and at some point that's no longer going to sustain itself

Actual salaries haven't fallen. The point of paying those salaries is you have to earn every penny. If they overhire and a bunch of people start taking the money for granted, that breaks down the social contract

Half of the perks e.g. sabbaticals or sleeping pods don't even make sense in a competitive working environment

Looks like you read through my bullshit

The point of those beliefs is simple: that's what it takes to get results in this economic system. It's toxic fuel. Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant

In this economic system, everyone is a free agent trying to maximize their own wealth, but at the same time we have a need for support. People can simultaneously be wolves and sheep

I'm not saying that people shouldn't confide in each other. I'm saying that in this fucked up world, you need both. One side comes naturally because we don't come out of the womb scheming, the other is a hard truth that we all have to make peace with. If you want to keep your stuff, you have to fight for it. Toxic masculinity isn't some pointless evolutionary quirk, it's solving a specific problem in the circle of life

I kind of wish coffee houses had more of this role like how they were in Vienna

I mean, I talk to friends and family about stuff that's going on. But I don't turn to them for actual advice because usually my own advice is better

> A child or partner is hospitalized or dies?

everyone processes grief differently

> You develop a potentially terminal illness?

I mean, I'm probably going to die anyway. At least if you're alone you don't have to worry about the trade off between extreme medical bills and a few more months of life vs leaving family more money

> A partner betrays you?

I don't really plan on marrying so I'd just replace them with someone else

In all of these situations, you can figure out ways to get through them alone

Once you're an adult, do you even need one in the first place?

I'm 24, I don't go to anyone for help pretty much ever, I just follow my own goals. That's gotten me way farther than most people I know

I don't think this talk about "male emotional support networks" is actually intended to help men, it's meant to infantilize them. They'd be better off just buying into the nietzschean "support yourself" type of worldview

nah it's too expensive

> After a year or two of iterating you're back to JSON, checking if fields exist, and re-validating your data.

Every time this has happened to me, it's because of one-sided contract negotiation and dealing with teams where their incentives are not aligned

i.e. they can send whatever shit they want, and we have to interpret it and make it work

> You get incredibly readable API documentation with protos that isn't muddled with code and business logic.

I mean, ideally (hopefully) in the JSON case there's some class defined in code that they can document in the comments

If it's a shitty shop that's sometimes less likely. Nice thing about protos is that the schemas are somewhere

> The wire protocol is not type safe. It has type tags, but they reuse the same tags for multiple datatypes.

When is this ever an issue in practice? Why would the client read int32 but then all of a sudden decide to read uint32?

I feel like this article just discusses API semantics, which just feels like a bunch of pedantic best-practices with no actual substance. It doesn't mention any of the things that gRPC offers that the alternatives don't offer, which you would expect from a google article of all places

Would've been nice if they talked about how schema evolution is different in both cases, bidirectional streaming, or performance differences for different workloads

he didn't say he was going to stop hiring them, he said that AI would perform at a similar ability

is anyone else here addicted to melatonin? I feel like my circadian rhythms refuse to work in a way that conveniently fits with the 9-5

This level of political engagement seems kind of out of character for him

Is he just kissing ass, or is there genuine frustration on decaying business culture? It feels like both he and Musk are idealizing some kind of past version of SV where WLB was less of a concern