ttiurani

After reading the replies I believe this dynamic is real, but from my own opposite experiences, not universal. I asked my feminist wife about this and she said the reason she isn't put off by vulnerable men is partly because her father was a sensitive man and traditional gender roles were not enforced by her mother either. And that feminists are not immune to the pathriarchy.

So I think this reaction can change but it will take time.

For me, becoming a generalist has been driven by broad curiosity across many schools of thought – not limited to just software nor even technology. I can't even imagine a world where I would have been content specializing.

One upside that hasn't been mentioned, is that not not specializing leaves more room for serendipity. I could not have followed many opportunities that have popped had I not been willing to start again as a novice.

The only, but big, downside has been that I had to quit my post-grad studies and the academia. Just the thought of pursuing a single avenue for a minimum of four years is unbearable.

Related to the above, I've also had to come to terms that I won't be one of the best in the world at anything (easily) measurable. It hasn't been easy to accept, but at the same time I've also begun to appreciate collaboration much more than competition. I believe it's also a healthier approach to life in general.

> See, the scope and purpose of something changes faster than its name can.

There's your problem. Create libraries that aim to do one thing and do it well. Once you release your project and have users that depend on your code, you owe it to them to maintain it in the original scope. If you have an urge to change your project's scope so much that the name should change, create a new library with a better name instead.

p.s. Obviously does not apply to brand names, which need to be distinctive.

p.p.s. Rich Hickey talks about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk

> Most systems in this era of cheap hardware are single user, BUT NOT ALL SYSTEMS

OP quite clearly argues that multi-user systems can still have the old behavior if they so choose with explicit configuration. OP makes an argument about what should be the sensible default in 2022, and who should do explicit configuration.

I think the point that nowadays easy single user linux configuration should be preferred over multi-user configurations is good.

IMO distros could make this easy by turning privileged ports into an (advanced) installation question. Then the clearly single-user-focused distros would default to 80, and the more server-oriented or conservative distros would default to the current behavior, but both could do which ever.

> Start your service on port 8080, for example.

In the era of Let's Encrypt, this is really about 80 and 443. The background for the OP is probably to host "normal" sites on single user hardware.

If you were to give out to non-technical users addresses like "http://example.org:8080" which then transform into "https://example.org:8443", that's just horrible UX. Those kinds of numbers in the URL probably also look to many people like someone is trying to hack them. Furthermore addresses are also communicated word-of-mouth "go to example dot org".

So no, using unprivileged ports is not an actual workaround for the use cases OP is referring to.

For posterity this is a complete misunderstanding of everything degrowth. There's a whole book about this particular disingenuous Malthusian accusation but here's the gist:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2021/04/14/giorgos-kallis/why-m...

Another name for this is JWCC. IMO very good argument for this feature set here:

https://nigeltao.github.io/blog/2021/json-with-commas-commen...

I wrote this very quickly as just one comment among dozens of very different comments, so I really didn't expect to get the attention. It's much harder to write with plain words about these topics, so that's the reason for all the jargon.

As for the anti-downvote spell, I knew from previous experience that I get downvotes every time I question the importance of technology. And I did notice many downvotes this time too (from karma fluctuations), but just got a lot more upvotes.

Thanks, sent you an email!

There is no easy answer, and making a change this big is a monumental task. Personally I've still come to think that just because making this change is very hard, that's not an excuse for me to not try, because the alternative is so much worse.

What I'm talking about is what the academic degrowth research has been working on for the past 20 years. (What's under the degrowth umbrella is the current wave of discussions started by the 50 year old "The Limits to Growth" report.) Doughnut economics is also intimately related.

If you want to learn more, as it happens, there is a brand new book "Degrowth & Strategy" with a free PDF here:

http://mayflybooks.org/degrowth-strategy

Note: I haven't yet read it, but it has got a lot of endorsements and great reviews from the top researches on the field, so it should be good.

None of them are system changes.

Yes, 1 and 3 would be fantastic – although switching to electric without at the same time reducing SOVs is IMO very inadequate if you take int account all of the planetary boundaries, not just climate change. 2 is a policy that might stem from the system change, not the actual change. 4 is not based on facts: there are billions of people in the world who are living within planetary boundaries. Can't stress this enough: it's not "humans" that are the problem but the wealthy people that are taking more from nature than nature can regenerate.

A meaningful system change to me is where there is a deliberate and continued reduction in material flows and energy use in the rich countries until they are below planetary boundaries. That can be done if they deliberately start reducing overproduction. That in turn would happen if governments would abandon the goal of aggregate economic growth across all sectors, but instead increase the parts of the economy that produce well-being and scale down the parts that don't. Another system change would be if the rich countries would pay for the catastrophic damage they have inflicted on the countries worst affected by climate change, and then stop taking advantage of poor countries by ending unequal exchange.

Those would be system changes.

I'm not saying nothing except politics is needed – everything would be doubly hard if e.g. solar wouldn't have become so cheap.

But given what is easy in the current world (producing and selling stuff) and what is hard (creating political change), I wish that the most capable and smartest people in the world would work mostly on the hard parts.

I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but the answer to your question depends on your analysis of the problem.

If you're an ecomodernist, who believes we can stop and reverse the transgression of planetary boundaries (climate change, biodiversity loss, chemical pollution, ocean acidification, etc.) without any meaningful system changes, the sibling comment tips might help.

If you are, like me, unconvinced by the ecomodernist argument – and have a grasp on all of the different ways the environment is being destroyed (not just "climate"), know Jevons paradox and rebound effects, are up to speed with the empirical knowledge of decoupling rates of both energy and material flows compared to "safe" limits – then "working for climate" almost exclusively means working to bring about a big political change.

Unfortunately that limits quite a bit the income potential of the work, but for me that's what "working for climate" means.

> It is actually a good idea regarding decentralization.

I absolutely agree: hypercore, their DHT and holepunching work is excellent.

My frustration stems from the fact that nothing in the innovative part of Keet needs cryptocurrencies. Now "pump" was the wrong term there. I meant cryptocurrency businesses are trying desperately to find any semi legitimate use cases for their tech becauae if they do, that'll cause the value of the coins they own to go up, and thus making them richer. Without that awkwardly bolted on Bitcoin nonsense in Keet neither of the funding companies would have given them a dime.

The red flag is because the good of keet does not negate the bad of promoting cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are a technological dead end, politically totally against everything I stand for, and morally bankrupt wrt the ecological disaster that is PoW and the pyramid scheme with the already powerful and or wealthy reaping even more for themselves.

I'm also not alone here, see e.g. https://concerned.tech

Furthermore Keet developers' decision to accept that money makes me doubt their judgement, and question where their startup will end up.

For those reasons, I won't use nor recommend keet to anyone.

Any mention of bitcoins typically means a full-on commitment to cryptocurrencies.

And I don't think I was wrong, because found out only later that this is funded by Tether and Bitfinex. The actual purpose of this project seems to be to pump the value of the owner's cryptocurrencies. So a hard pass from me.

The bitcoin support is a huge red flag for me. I really hope they scrap that.

Sveltekit with typescript and adapter-static.

Sveltekit scales down very well: if you need only CSS and HTML for some paths, that's all you write in your svelte files, and that's also all users download. At the same time if for some other paths you need more Javascript, you can just add it there, without bloating the JS bundle size. Svelte's built-in stores makes it also possible to also do very complex state management, if that's ever a need. With vite under the hood the dev experience is lightning fast.

Reminder that the problem isn't just "too much GHG", but crossing most planetary boundaries[1] at the same time.

I get why MIT has done the research, but this publicity is poised to create yet another distraction and delay necessary actions. We have to stop focusing on the symptoms and have the courage to go after the root causes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries

I'm not a fan of his by any means, but want to still give my N=1 counter example:

I have disagreed with PG on Twitter, and also pointed out errors in his logic and facts a bunch of times, and haven't been blocked.

I'm with on on this, and agree wholeheartedly that fighting overconsumption is a system change, which needs a big political win (see my response on a sibling comment).

At the same time, I do have a little hope that commenting this here can plant some seeds that might grow into something bigger later on.

I agree that it can be possible to live sustainably in a house, like you described (and I gave that list mostly to spark the imagination, not as absolutes).

But big lands with very few people living on them, is very hard to do at scale, especially when taking biodiversity loss into account.

Those were just a few examples to spark the imagination, not categorical demands for everyone, and there are indeed many caveats.

Furthermore, even though I did address individuals in the above points, going after overconsumption needs a system change and a big political struggle, and is not something that can realistically be changed with individual consumption choices.

But keeping in mind that saving the planet is mostly a political struggle, individuals can change the commonsense and what's considered normal.

Agree with the general sentiment that moving to electric is a great place to rethink the whole design.

However a "make it electric" mentality doesn't address the fact that a big chunk of the "its" (at least in the global North) are just overconsumption that shouldn't exist at all, if we ever want to find balance with nature.

So instead of changing to an electric car that has a massive material footprint and takes up the same amount of space on the road as a petrol car, buy a bike (and vote for investments in bike lanes and public transport).

Instead of living in a huge house and needing a lawnmower, move to an apartment (and vote for more compact housing zoning).

Instead of buying vanity gadgets that relies on ocean cargo traffic, don't (and work less as you then need less money).

This is an important study because most (all?) scenarios used by the IPCC depend heavily on these (as of now) wildly optimistic CO2 removal levels, either with BECCS or DACs.

In order to hit the "brief and rapidly closing window" we have for effective action, we need to look into lowering material flows and energy use by targeting overconsumption. We simply don't have time to wait for a tech miracle, and – as this study points out – the miracle can have huge downsides.

> These pesky climate problems can be solved.

The thing is, it's not just climate that's the problem. The "pesky" problem is that we've crossed or are soon crossing most planetary boundaries[1] at the same time.

Fusion doesn't stop and reverse biodiversity loss, chemical pollutants, land-system change, biochemical flows, ocean plastic buildup and ocean acidification.

To stop the ecological collapse, the necessary condition is that the global North drastically reduces material flows and energy consumption. With less energy use, fusion also becomes less critical.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries

Tip to the privileged[1]: find out how low you can drop your monthly spend – what are all the things you could still relatively comfortably live without? I'm now very happy living on my savings, spending super little per month, and it has opened up so many wildly different career paths. A bonus is that my ecological footprint is also very small (relative to my country at least), which has had a very positive effect mentally.

[1] Obviously if you already are at the limit, or living in a society without safety nets, this is not an option.

> Currently we collect around 42 terabytes of data per datacenter each day.

And at the same time the article is very vague on by who and how all that data is read. A much more interesting question for a blog post is: how many bytes of the collected log data is used to create actual business value?

This is quite extreme: you absolutely can and will lose amazing ideas unless you can find them later written down. This comes up in interviews with great creative people all the time.

Just listen to David Lynch:

"I write [ideas] down so I don't commit suicide later having forgotten the idea. I've forgotten probably two or three major ideas, and it'll make you sick, just horrible. Write the idea down. You'll say: I'll never forget this idea. Ah-uh: you can forget them."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhf76z6BkM&t=197s

"She tells me a bit about her metaverse project, Space Falcon. I'm not really sold on it, but I'm not really an NFT person so I didn't have any reason to think it was a bad idea either.[...] It seems kind of like a get-rich-quick scheme, but again, that's kind of how I see a lot of NFTs. With all that she's doing for Arrow, there's no harm in showing a little support."

The real takeaway from this is that it's dangerous to break your moral compass and sense of reality to the point where you think helping out people who are pushing an obviously fraudulent business, is ok and normal.

I'm sure this article is on point, and the comments here seem to confirm it.

But to me it's just wild that working to bring about a net positive impact to the world isn't mentioned anywhere.

And no: that's not even remotely the same as "cool stuff". Making a rocket taxi for the super rich or tunnel for SOVs is not it. We are on the brink of a global environmental collapse, and a lot of the blame is on the "cool stuff" designed by engineers.

Engineers need to seriously start asking: would the world be better or worse off if this company trying to hire me didn't exist at all?

Is there a search engine for programming? One that not only searches stackoverflow, github, relevant subreddits and the other big sites, but also finds programming articles in personal blogs?

That would be valuable to me.

> Databases Are the Most Important Thing in My Life After My Family > I even broke up with a girlfriend once because of sloppy benchmark results.

I can't say I can relate, but I do appreciate being this passionate about things!