unsayable

I'm not saying it's healthy, I'm just saying it's how it is. I also didn't mean to threaten your safety, but I think it's reasonable to caution anyone against being associated with "alt-right" stuff, because it is a safety concern.

For example, if you're teaching your kids that sitting in class instead of walking out over gun control is the right thing to do, you might think that makes sense. Why protest for something that you don't believe in? But you're probably hurting their chances at being socially accepted, and there's a good chance the other kids will think your kid is likely to be the next school shooter simply by their lack of protesting. Sitting out is now more dramatic than joining the protesting already in progress.

If you teach them that questioning the sentiment of the day is healthy, they're going to end up being identified as sexist, or racist, or a likely shooter, or whatever acceptable slur would describe the most perverse interpretation of their belief. I'm pretty sure Damore's intentions were good, but do you think his questioning of diversity initiatives was helpful to his career or his social life?

The way these movements are shaping up, you can't be neutral. If you're not part of the perceived solution, you're part of the perceived problem, and you're going to be treated as a problem. But if you fall in line with the mob, you'll have more opportunities for advancement, networking, and community support.

edit: Btw, I upvoted all of your comments. But you'll notice my suggestions for censorship are being upvoted while your cautionary tale about freedom is not... HN is illustrating my point for me.

Yes, I'm from USA. And to be honest, I'm just trying out some new ideas here. I half-expected to be skewered here for proposing speech controls similar to gun controls, but it's actually becoming a mainstream view. The recent gun control marches have really opened up my eyes to this.

I used to be a proponent of free speech, gun rights, drug legalization, and all the other internet libertarian ideas about freedom. I realize now that the culture is changing rapidly around me and that those old ideas about freedom put you on a path toward isolation, public scorn, and possibly criminality.

You may need to reconsider your ideas about freedom before you get shunned in a way that hurts your family.

Watch the gun control movement, the people trying to solve "fake news" with regulation, and other social movements. They're having great success at trading in freedom for security, and it seems inevitable that the same types of controls will be applied to speech.

It's probably better to adapt early to the new normal and be on the "progressive" side than it is to side with hate mongers, gun activists, and drug addicts to promote freedom. You might think you can protect your family from societal change with critical thinking and appeals to classical liberal ideas, but I believe those ideas are the most likely to get you ostracized in our current environment.

I think your best bet for protecting your family now is to conform early and often. We're going to sacrifice freedom for perceived security anyway, so you might as well get on the correct side of it before you become an outcast. Your comment about what "history teachers hid" from a generation and your need to "protect my family" place you somewhere near "alt-right" in the current landscape. You have to ask yourself if that's really where you want to be.

That's pretty interesting. I was unaware of swivel guns.

Though it appears the first "consumer" versions of semi-automatic rifles are from the early 1900s with the M1 Garand being the point of mass adoption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle#Notable_e...

Perhaps if you had to pass a background check, then you could be allowed to engage in approved speech? In 2018, speech can cause just as much damage as a car, and we all agree you need a license to operate a car. A license could probably help with the "fake news" epidemic too.

Sure, it's hard to totally stop people from using speech irresponsibly and hurting others, but if we aggressively prosecute unlawful speech, we could probably reduce the amount of harm done by people speaking their minds.

The first amendment wasn't written with social media in mind, just like the second amendment wasn't written with semi-automatic rifles in mind. The US needs to enact common sense speech control to stop these tragedies from propagating.

Secondary thought: maybe if we restrict online speech to those over 21, we could stop a lot of bullying that leads to these problems in the first place, and as an extra benefit this kind of ban could stop children from posting things online that will negatively impact them later in life.

I have strong opinions about this, because like most developers, I've tried to see how I can use drugs to augment my life.

As a programmer at a startup, everyone seems to accept marijuana, alcohol, and caffeine as acceptable, though I think it's considered unacceptable to be high at work (but probably nobody would care). Opiates are considered taboo, and rightfully so. Adderall is prevalent and easily available.

For me personally, after an exploratory phase of trying all the drugs, I've figured this much out:

* MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, 2-Cs, etc can be great for expanding your world view and generating new ideas or as therapy, but aren't really helpful in a white-collar worker sense. None of my peers would judge each other based on use these weekend drugs, but IMO they shouldn't really have a routine place in anyone's life. I'm pretty sure this is why people go to burning man, as a sort of drug-induced retreat.

* Dissociatives (ketamine, DXM) are a strange class of drugs. I believe that ketamine or dextromethorphan will ultimately be seen as the most effective treatment for chronic depression. These probably don't have any place for daily use, but could be useful to get out of a depressive state. The research isn't in yet on this though, so tread with care.

* Cocaine has supply chain issues, so I refuse to try it, but it's also very expensive and doesn't seem to be that effective for productivity compared to alternatives.

* Modafinil and armodafinil have gained popularity lately (probably because of grey-market sales), and they're super effective for staying awake, but not very effective for improving productivity.

* Amphetamines (adderall, vyvanse, dexedrine) and phenidates (ritalin, focalin) are super useful, but have to be used with care. I have an adderall prescription which I use a couple times a week to power through the week's work. This is great for me because I work from home and can spend an uninterrupted day or two crushing the work for the week. These drugs are unfortunately prescribed daily for ADHD patients like myself, but you'd have to be insane to take them every day. You'll quickly burn out after about a week and be worse off than you were before you started taking them. People consuming massive amounts of caffeine probably need one of these drugs instead. These drugs are addictive, but not seriously so... stopping will mean a couple days of rest before going back to normal.

* Benzos (xanax, klonopin, etc) are super useful for anxiety, but the same rule applies to be careful. They're only useful a couple times a week before you develop an addiction problem. Xanax is great for getting to sleep and resetting your schedule, and klonopin is great for when you're going to have a super stressful day with things outside of your control and you'd like to temper your emotions a bit. These drugs make you not give a fuck and feel great, which can be a problem for some, but is another tool in the toolbox of the responsible drug user. I have also have a prescription for both klonopin and xanax, but my doctor knows I don't take them daily. Almost anyone drinking alcohol daily probably actually needs a benzo and counseling about responsible use. I don't use alcohol for stress relief, but I will have a few drinks at a party. These drugs are addictive, but very seriously so... stopping suddenly once you've developed an addiction can cause erratic behavior and seizures.

* Tobacco seems generally frowned upon, but vaping is somewhat acceptable. Sometimes I vape low amounts of nicotine to help deal with stress, but I always regret it and end up quitting. It's much easier to quit than cigarettes.

* Marijuana I use daily, usually after work and before bed. My doctor thinks I might have PTSD from various life events, and I have some very disturbing dreams. Marijuana both lets me change my perspective, which helps to end the work day or shift my mood when I'm really upset about something, and it lets me turn off dreaming while I sleep so I can get better rest. If I stop using marijuana, no withdrawal happens, but disturbing dreams do.

* I don't like opiates, so I don't take them and don't know that much about them, other than they seem to cause the most problems for the most people. I would love to understand how people enjoy them though... They make you feel warm and sleepy, but with nausea and constipation. I don't think this is a good trade.

If I wasn't a relatively privileged person as a tech worker, I would likely not be able to go to my doctor and demand adderall, xanax, and klonopin while being open about my marijuana use. It is nice, however, to have a drug toolbox that's completely legal and insurance paid (well, except for the weed).

All together, I would say that drugs (whether prescription, off-label, or illicit) have had a hugely net positive impact on my life, both professional and personal.

Let me know if I can answer any questions for you and good luck with your project. I hope you'll find that education and safe access are better than prohibition.

South Park had Cartman use the un-trademarkable version of the Redskins to achieve his personal business goals in an excellent season of South Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnK-jYzaWtw

Throwaway account here... but I think the real reason for this is because I've noticed two distinct types of developers:

1) Hackers that grew up with technology that are typically very proficient and employable before entering university or having much work experience.

2) People who went to CS school in order to get a job as a developer because the pay is pretty decent and they were always kind of good with computers.

I'd much prefer to work with people that grew up as hackers than people who learned later in life. It's a cultural thing more than an age thing, but I feel like it's very hard to see the big picture if you weren't indoctrinated into it on IRC or forums when you were a teen. I'd imagine it's sort of like growing up on a farm vs going to agriculture school.

Because of this, it's very hard to tell as people get older which camp they came from. If someone is young and knows a ton, it's clear that they grew up in hacker culture and likely have a breadth of knowledge. If someone studied hard for years and never was part of the culture, IMO they will be harder to work with and not have as much general knowledge.

As a bonus, if you grew up in the culture and you're applying for an entry level job, you probably already have a decade of hacking under your belt, and that's work experience that's totally unaccounted for on a resume.

The result of this is that if you see someone young and surprisingly knowledgeable in many computer related areas, they probably grew up steeped in hacker culture and have tons more useful general knowledge than someone without that extra decade of experience.

BTW, I'm not advocating for age discrimination, but it may actually be more of undocumented experience discrimination than age discrimination.