paskozdilar

Dynamic linking is just poor man's IPC.

I don't know about India, but it really is the case in less-developed countries. The sluggishness of the legal system is a catalyst to corruption - so anyone can do anything, and suing is useless because the case won't even be heard until years later.

The only way anyone is gonna get sued is because of such "stubborn" individuals that keep on going. But alas, a few individuals can't fix the whole system.

Go (AKA Golang) has been famous for its portability. The docs seem to indicate Go has had AIX support since version 1.12 [0]. I haven't used it personally, though, so I don't know how good it is.

[0] https://go.dev/blog/ports

Because it's much easier to implement a set of concrete guidelines (have a daily meeting, use story points, etc) and turn them intro strict rules, than to implement the more fundamental but less concrete guidelines (individuals and interactions over processes and tools).

The same reason folk religion often focuses on hard, measurable rules (don't work on X, don't eat Y) instead of the more fundamental abstract ones (treat your fellow man as you want him to treat you).

I'd argue the same point even if we took only chronically homeless into consideration instead of an average homeless.

It might not be helpful to the individual, but it provides a useful guideline for society - everyone is capable of doing great stuff, as long as the means for doing so are provided.

I'd bet my life on this - if every homeless person was given a place to live, recovery from addiction (if needed), mental health counceling, education and a job, a significant percentage of them would become productive members of society.

That was certainly not my intention, I apologize if anyone feels that way because of my comments.

Here's what I figure:

Whatever thing we're talking about, be it online media or TV shows or an activity or whatever, there's a thin line between "fun" and "addictive" - in order for anything to be "addictive" it must also be "fun", or otherwise nobody would get addicted to it. Even more - the more "fun" a thing is, the more "addictive" it gets.

In online media, engagement tricks have got a bad reputation (at least with HN-visiting crowd) because of the companies who pour huge budgets into "engagement research", A/B testing, dark patterns, and all the other stuff we hate.

However, discarding all fun things because they might be addictive would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So it is important to draw some kind of line between "fun" and "addictive".

Right now, the absence of user engagement data collection seems to be a good rule of thumb. So in conclusion, your widget is okay.

---

I apologize if my question has offended. I did not mean to imply your personal work is "bad" in any way.

> Project management would benefit by bringing concepts from operating systems such as scheduling or task switching.

I agree.

Perhaps this is a good time for a Free Software organizational tool, built on such principles.

I feel some negativity from this question, but I will disregard those feelings as unfounded and try to answer in the best faith possible.

No, I have not considered trying it out, for a simple reason - I don't control any organization nor work in a management position, so I don't really have a chance to do so.

I'd like to believe that I would try out all those things that come to my mind, if I were to have a chance to do so.

The "event-based" paradigm is a useful way to orchestrate software. I wonder why it's not used to orchestrate people. A rule of thumb would be "every meeting must have a reason - an event that lead to it".

Why do we even have to have a fixed, recurring meeting? That's equivalent to polling a server periodically and asking "hey, any event happened?" - which is extremely unscalable, and should be done only in situations when malfunction of event-driven mechanics is expected. Same with people - if an employee is trusted, meetings with them should only happen on an event - when there is a change of plans, some new work to be done, et cetera.

We have asychronous communication - so why not asychronous organization?

> You are on a personal website.

I'm not demanding you take it off, I'm just making a conversation. I'm curious about the difference between "being hooked" and "time killing" from your perspective.

Right now, it seems that the difference is "whether or not the creator cares about the amount of user interaction". Which is fine, makes sense (since most toxic of forms of "engagement tools" are driven by metrics user interaction) but kinda hand-wavy - anyone can pretend to "not care" and keep doing it.

> It was a fun time killer from a few years ago, not a way to keep you hooked

What's the exact difference?

This rigidity of computers is exactly why we must not let them control society.

Society is responsible for each and every member of it. Having 0.001% of population's lives ruined because of an error is not acceptable.

Humans may be slower and less efficient than machines (and require living wages), but humans are flexible and understand context. Replacing them with machines will only remove the useful human capabilities that we need so much in this society where most of the rules are still ad-hoc and implicit.

Imagine being assaulted by a robot policeman whose crime detection facility has malfunctioned, while you can't even complain to his robot colleague because it hasn't been programmed for malfunction of other robot policemen.

The main pattern is trying to construct a false dichotomy, implying that, if you don't do what they want, you're a horrible person in some way - and forcing you to basically say "yes I'm a bad person" in order not to do something. That is absurd. Not doing something is a default state, and the choice of not doing something should always be the default.

I have an irrational level of hate towards everyone who is trying to construct such a false dichotomy in communication with me. It shows basic lack of respect for me as a human being, it is manipulative, and ultimately it's just communicating in bad faith.

No tolerance for confirmshaming. Everyone who participates in such activity is a bad actor in my book.

Honestly, just pay someone else to do it.

Some people are naturally better at communication than others, and they will definitely do a better job.

Unless you want to learn how to deal with emotions for the sake of personal growth. In that case, check out Stoicism. It is [oversimplified] a philosophy for keeping calm in emotional situations.

Perhaps you can. Perhaps your detection rate is close to 100%, too.

But still, there's only one of you, so the method isn't scalable.

Based on your definitions, would you agree that real diversity is immeasurable, and that the only way to foster real diversity is to allow "fake" diversity to thrive?

Viewing diversity as a means to an end, which is productivity, will never work without a wider context. Humans are ends to themselves, and trying to optimize for "productive" diversity will always backfire. Diversity leads to both beauty and ugliness, productivity and stagnation, [thing-you-like] and [thing-you-don't-like] - you can't have one without the other.

How would you define "real diversity", as opposed to "fake diversity"?

> must be due to divine intervention

So a person can't even do great things without God taking all the credit?

That's a fairly depressing view of humanity.

Subscription services, in my opinion, is the pinnacle of a disposable society. Everything is ephemereal, nothing lasts, and people are dependent on their corporate overlords to bring "updates", which are often nothing more than a stream of ugly hacks working around the rotten core.

This is great. So many ideas that I've had cooking in the background of my mind are crystallized and presented clearly in that video. Thank you for this.

In a way, yes.

However, we need to know what we mean by "manipulation" here. Manipulation, in colloquial usage, refers to the act of deceiving others, and often causing harm, in order to achieve some selfish desire.

In general, "manipulation" as "human interaction" does not require malice (malice, in my experience, leads to extremely poor manipulation tactics, as humans are not stupid, and will realize what you're doing and retaliate).

E.g. when you're encouraging a friend to call a girl he likes by telling him about all the good things that may come out of it, you're manipulating him - you're telling him things that will affect his feelings in a way that will make him do what you want, i.e. call the girl. In this particular case, this kind of manipulation is actually benevolent.

Human beings can and do influence each others' feelings using words all the time. Most of the time, that influence is subconscious, and often it is harmful. Being aware of how your words and actions influence other people - i.e. knowing how to manipulate people - is a tool, and just like any other tool, it can be used for both good and evil (of course, "good" and "evil" are always subjectively defined, but you can take any measure you want and you will always be able to use manipulation for either).

I don't like using the word "manipulation" because of the above reasons. I prefer the more Wittgenstein-ian term "wordplay", because that's all it is - just playing with words in some contexts that we're familiar with, which we know will make stuff happen.

> How exactly do you learn this?

Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer to this. My learning process is somewhat chaotic and random. Reading analytic philosophy and psychology definitely gave me important insights.

However, the method I've found works the best is try to imagine society as a system, and humans as processes in the system. Every human has their own will, and they decide what they will or will not do. Nobody owes anyone anything, so every human protocol relies on the will of the other person to follow the protocol with us. So the most important question for any kind of communication is "how do we get the other person to do what we want?".

This may sound selfish, but is (in my experience) more efficient than trying to read minds or conform to some abstract authority of how we should act, then being mad at other people when they act the way that doesn't fit the abstract authority. Even more, it makes dealing with you easier for other people, which makes other people like you more.

> There are answers (unless their verbalization skills suck), but too many people don’t like to hear them and will argue or fight back.

I agree there are always answers, but nobody should be obligated to give them.

"Because I don't want to" should be a perfectly acceptable answer to any question of why we're denying a request. Assuming, of course, we are familiar with the consequences of not completing the request and okay with them.

I remember a conversation with a dear friend of mine. I was studying CS at the time, he was studying Philosophy.

We went into a discussion over some esoteric topics, and we got stuck on a definition of a word, so I asked him "but how do we know what exactly does [the word] mean?", to which in response he paused, looked me in the eye, and just said:

    It means whatever the hell we agree it means.

That sentence has been with me ever since. For some reason, my whole life before that moment, I've had a feeling that words have some definite meaning that we can somehow learn. Only then did I realize how language actually works - every word is just an agreement between humans.

Ever since I've been spending a lot of time learning how to communicate effectively. I believe that a lot of bad things in the world happen simply because of miscommunication of ideas - more precisely, not being in agreement to what some words mean, while using them in discussions, assuming the other person has exactly the same understanding of the word as we do.

Nowdays, in discussions, when I feel that there's "something wrong" in the air, I tend to ask people "what do you mean by X" and some people get annoyed by it. But the number of times I've defused a conflict that way, by revealing it to be pure misunderstanding, makes it worth it.

The fact that the word "excel" is nowdays synonymous with "spreadsheet software" is exactly the reason why we should NOT teach kids how to use MS Excel.

There are many free implementations of spreadsheet software. Kids can get even more experience using different kinds of software, teaching them ways in which software can differ while still being able to do the same things. Ironically, this would probably make kids more skilled with MS Excel, if they were ever forced to use it.

There's no reason to teach kids MS Excel in particular, unless you think memorizing positions of buttons is a useful skill in the real world.

Exactly.

And the real problem is the way humans decide sentience in the first place - by how much the machinery acts as if it were sentient. There is no other information - just our perception. If we imagine two agents, A and B, one sentient and one insentient, but both acting identically, we theoretically couldn't decide which one is which.

So whether or not there is sentience in a machine then becomes a question as unanswerable as whether there is something that exists outside the universe we can perceive. We cannot know what we cannot possibly perceive.

In my country it's colloquially called just "stick" (the english word), sometimes "USB stick". "Copy that stuff on the stick."

I suppose in english "a stick" refers to any long thin piece of a tree or shrub, so it's ambiguous.

> Not just 'not work', but 'actively repel'. A popup chat bot or a survey form request (during or after using a website or software product) or anything not germane to the task that has a shadow or notification highlight has slowly but surely become a form of wart that elicits a deep, instinctual disgust from me. I'd even say an unhealthy and unreasonable level of disgust.

Same here. I've even setup a bunch of Firefox extensions just to keep the annoying ad-like stuff away from me.

Sometimes, when I open up a browser on a computer I don't own, I get surprised by how filled internet is with annoyances. It feels like I've put on the glasses from They Live and can suddenly see all the bullsh-t.