obedm

Is that really true though?

Saying "we didn't kill them all" doesn't exempt the fact that we did it for many of them.

There's no easy answer to this. We are what we are. But it points to the disregard powerful beings have over weaker ones when they get in their way.

This is a very important point. Maybe there were some great philosophers in their time that argued against it and were ridiculed or didn't reach us through time.

I'm curious what you mean by being a fabrication? Their ideas were real and they've shaped history throughout time one way or another

Haha you mirrored the argument I've made many times before. The eating meat part I feel is likely to be the thing that will change.

But that's an obvious one. What else will be seen as "barbaric" that we don't even think of challenging?

Working 8 hours a day? Having kids? Going outside or staying inside?

I remember the Greeks were not big on private property and instead took great pride in their public buildings. The polar opposite of our society now

He acknowledged their existence but as far as I know, he, not anyone else, said that slaving people was "wrong" or shouldn't be done.

It's important to note that Ceneca and the famous stoics (Marcus Aurelius for example) were rich and benefitted greatly from the status quo.

I've never heard of any ancient philosopher being abhorrent about slavery and the like and I've read that there weren't any.

Could you point to some readings if you're aware of it? I'd love to know

I always think I can draw the line in the sand as a very rational and relatively well read person.

But then I remember that the best thinkers the world has ever seen (Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, ad nauseum) were never able to look beyond their noses to see the human suffering of others.

Aka, they were perfectly happy to have a society run by slaves, to ignore the plight of the poor and sick, etc.

You've got a fantastic point. It reminds me of Chinese history, full of war between clans until it was finally United.

What I keep thinking about is that we are all... Humans. Like, the same animal, same way of thinking etc. And yet our answer so many times is conflict.

The only reason conquerors didn't kill all the conquered was for taxes and slaves and so on. Imagine if resources were not an issue ( advanced enough tech) and you wanted to avoid confrontation.

Sending a near light speed bullet to explode a star seems a good trade-off to keep your dominance.

We don't know that happened to them, or to any other human species for that matter.

But we're pretty sure we obliterated a entire species in our way up the food chain ( giant marsupials for example)

We're trying our best to exterminate certain species of mosquitoes. We haven't done it because we lack the technical ability as of yet.

Also, have you met any Aztec? There are barely any American Indians left compared to the millions there were originally.

Mammuts? All the giant marsupials of Australia that went extinct the moment humans set foot there?

We've been on top of the food chain for very long. Now imagine if we discover another race may take our place and the only option is communication or total obliteration?

I wish it was different, we only have a sample size of one.

But just like the three space ships that first found out about the dark forest and ultimately killed each other, it's what makes most sense from game theory

I think dark forest is the best explanation so far.

If what you say is true, it should've been true for earlier human civilizations too.

Why didn't the Chinese and Japanese civilizations unite to conquer others?

Why didn't the Mongols unite with whoever else to conquer, instead of Genghis Khan doing it all with a bunch of Mongols in horses?

Human civilization is a dark forest that only changed with global trade. The communication challenge is language and culture. And civilizations have always been technologically distinct, with the more powerful one almost always conquering.

With interstellar communication and technological advance it would be orders of magnitude higher stakes.

Highly depends on which country you're based on I think.

But yeah, it probably is

I can't take an article seriously when it's published under a pseudonym, by the website itself.

It could just be marketing for all I know. And it most likely is.

I don't want to think when I want to call my wife, play a movie, get information, or 99% of the things I do on my life.

I think enough during my workday. And when explaining things to my daughter or reading a book.

You probably never read the book, because the author never tells you to "dumb things down" but to make them so intuitive you don't have to think about them.

Same way you don't have to think how to open a tab or a door.

Have you ever been in front of a door and wondered if you had to push, pull, approach, slide? That's bad design.

It should be possible, but not practical.

It's easier to just code checks and balances to fix those errors instead. There's a famous story about a Google search bug caused by a comic ray and they implemented such error checking on their servers after that

Truly magnificent isn't it?

It's also a testament to the beauty of IRC. "we don't like the change. So here's a viable alternative".

We could say something similar happened with WhatsApp, but the difficulty of moving everyone to another platform is so much harder.

Hah same thought here! I'd assume the person calling is bat crazy.

I'd still be on my toes with the new hire just to be sure, but I wouldn't fire them.

Everyone has a story. And the people seeking revenge aren't necessarily in the right.

i love the typical "we are willing to pay this good candidate 30%" more than our current engineers. Even tho he knows nothing".

And then go on to not raise the experiences engineers salaries so that the new guy has the highest salary.

And then they're surprised when the veterans just leave the company.

You can do that with wordpress plus a site builder.

There are sure builders that are as good as Webflow, but without losing WP power

That's insanely accurate. For comparison most discoveries are usually only considered proven when it's 5 sigma.

For example they waited years to announce the Higgs bosson because they wanted to reach 5 sigma.

"images of child abuse are not child abuse".

Right. Because those images were just created magically? Someone took them. And there's a market for them.

If there's no market for such pictures, likely less children will suffer the consequences.

Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing it indirectly.

Read about the suicide rates in the UK by women before and after the country changed the type of gas stoves. Indirect effects can be very strong.

Reconsider your morals and logic.

I disliked the article because of that. Hinting that "amateurs" are working full time on programming jobs.

Although I've met unprofessional people at work. Being a professional doesn't mean you're an expert.

European here. Having 3 months written in your contract (and in many countries by law, like France) is pretty common.

You can still quit if both parties agree. I've done it before.

The clause is there to avoid this type of scenario where a key employee just says fuck it and leave.

It works both ways. So a company can say fuck it and fire you just because they want to.

It's a fantastic system. It can be exploited, but usually works really well for employees and it gives you a huge safety net you can (usually) rely on.

Consider that you grew up in the most technology advanced part of the world.

In 2001 we had dial-up and an IBM machine with paint. I was probably one of the few kids with a computer.

Technology is not homogenous across the globe, and advancement also means lots of people getting access to what we consider the norm.

I landed my last job in part thanks to my cover letter. It wasn't anything special, it just was good enough to be better than every other applicant that just shot-gunned it.

I've always found this to be the case. I only apply to jobs I want and spend time applying. It usually gets me through the door.

In a sea of fish, it's good to be a mer.. Man?

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Unless you implement a must-have feature based on localStorage or whatever, your site should still fully (or at least partially) function without it.

In my case, I was aghast my blog didn't work without cookies. I don't even have ads running on it, and it's static, it should work on my grandmother's toaster!

You're correct, this is something I tried to convey in my article but I didn't want to spend too many words on it.

When retrospecting about it, I realized I didn't think of it this way, even though it's correct. My mental model is like "state is just kept, don't worry about it".

Thank you for pointing it out though, it's hard to be accurate and succinct

That's some seriously amazing feedback, thank you for your kind words! It means a lot to have people enjoy my writing and the visuals.

I spend a lot of time with these articles to have them as clear as possible.

Thanks a lot for the feedback! This is something I've struggled quite a bit to improve, and I think the visuals for part 2 are better than part 1.

But you're right, I'm not satisfied yet with how the boxes show, I'll try to improve them for part 3 (and other articles that'll use them).

That's something I hadn't considered before. That's probably something that a lot of people would find valuable.

Out of all the questions my students ask me, there's always confusion about the way servers talk to each other, or what they even are.

I'll definitely write about this now haha. Thank you for the idea :)

(author here) this is true! That's what I'm trying to explain in the `state` section of the article.

State lives in a "global" and the component is modifying it. So it's "leaking info out".

It's hard to make comprehensive mental models that cover all the bases and leaves nothing out