ppqqrr

> My wife runs a police intelligence unit that catches actual criminals from ring info

https://heyfocus.com/ worked for me, maybe it’ll help (if you’re on Mac). Addiction to social media is a real problem; thousands of engineers are paid to make sure that these products ensnare your attention. It wouldn’t be odd if it takes a few bucks of your own to rescue yourself. Don’t hesitate to seek help, no one will laugh at you.

Technically, I guess so. Point is, we can’t be diligent about everything at all times; and that includes intellectually. Difference is that negative judgements are more readily wielded as verbal weapons than compliments.

Having provoked you so with a daring headline, the author’s ploy is to draw you into their actual writing, in which they will explain the nuances of their arguments. If you cannot be bothered to move past the headlines, you’ll just be provoked. If you’ve read all the text and are still not convinced, you’re entitled to your opinion.

Well, headlines be headlines. If you take them literally, they’ll disappoint you.

The author’s point is that labeling someone as “lazy” is intellectually lazy. Every person, throughout their lives, exhibits behaviors ranging the full spectrum from lazy to diligent. They might be lazy about one thing but diligent about another, all at different times, for reasons others may never find out about. Labeling a person as lazy ignores all of that, and lays judgement based on a specific things the labeler wish the labeled was more diligent about, and at the time of their choosing. It’s entirely subjective, and rarely constructive. Laziness, as a description of a person’s measurable, inherent attributes, is inherently vindictive, intellectually lazy, and generally unhelpful. It’s a way of saying “I give up on you, I don’t want to know your story, and I think you can’t change” without acknowledging your part in that judgement.

Attaching vindictive clapbacks to every other sentence from OP is really not a way to help your argument, especially on HN. OP’s argument is clear; we have surplus vaccines, it’s statistically safer than getting COVID regardless of your infection status and cheaper than getting tested for natural immunity, not to mention the cost society needs to bear if your failed die roll lands you in an ICU. I’m not sure what yours is, something vague about a govt-backed immunity testing program that doesn't exist yet. But I’m sure you’ll find a way to call me a turd for not getting it rather than supply details. Surprise me, please.

I think people who have night sky views pure enough for satellites to become a nuisance is probably in the global minority. One might even call it a privileged pov, given that most rural inhabitants of this planet struggle for basic network connectivity needed for their livelihood and the education of their children. I respect your sentiment, though - ultimately, the question is not whether we should do it; it’s who’s gonna stop us.

To be fair, a number of countries might not have ended up as functioning democracies with free speech, backed by high tech economies, if it hadn’t been for US financial aids. Germany, for example.