what_is_orcas

Isn't that sort of already happening?

This year we've seen floods in Germany, huge wildfires in the US west, snow in Texas (and the Pacific Northwest), storms up the US east coast (wasn't there flooding in New England, too?), and I'm sure other stuff I've either forgotten or not heard about.

I think what's going to compound that is the push for "carbon neutrality", the idea that any emissions will be offset by... offsets (carbon capture, tree-planting, whatever). That tends to only be about the period of time from achieving carbon neutrality forward, but ignores the carbon emitted leading up to that milestone. I'm guessing that reaching carbon neutrality, for many industries, is not going to be a carbon-neutral mission. For example, if we want to move to electric vehicles prior to a carbon-neutral supply chain, then every EV build can have a significant carbon-footprint.

> If I put a gun to your head and give you an hour, you can't make a node that points to two other nodes of the same type?

It's easy to make an imbalanced binary tree.

I once decided that building a binary tree based only on a friend's explanation of how they worked; it seemed like it would be a good learning exercise for myself (I don't have a CS degree). It was like 10 minutes of coding to get it minimally working & tested, but then I had to work out all of the different rotations to make it a balanced binary tree (I don't know that an imbalanced binary tree is ever actually useful, as it could just work out to be a slower linked-list in the worst case scenario).

I did it once, took me a little while, but I don't know that I could do it again without having to reexamine all of the different cases that result in imbalance and the rotations that respond to each.

> Because if you did that we wouldn't have billionaires.

that sounds like a good thing

I appreciate your thoughtful answer, though I do not agree with your beliefs (to the extent that I think your beliefs are not only not-good for society but actually harmful for society).

I can't tell if this is satire, so I'll respond to it as though it is not.

> How are you supposed to staff an incredibly shitty low paying job if people aren't literally starving?

Why should anyone be forced to do that shitty of a job? Why can't the wage be increased and/or the quality of treatment be increased?

> Offering more money or better working conditions is a nonstarter, they would rather just move the work offshore.

This works for things like software developers, but not for the majority of food & service industry.

No, I am & was just genuinely curious.

And I am now curious about your beliefs that conservative politics will lead to a just society.

Hey how do you reconcile your beliefs about Jesus with your stance on welfare for non-christians?

I'm just curious and I don't know any conservative catholics in real life.

So you're telling me that you think that people have kids so that the government gives them money?

I thought evolution's components were sexual selection (who fucks) and natural selection (who dies). Random variation can change genes, yeah, but evolution is driven through the dis/advantages of the resulting phenotype (do they succeed at finding a mate, do they raise as man offspring to sexual maturity and do they survive long enough to do the aforementioned).

> It's also interesting that a single mutation can cause this lack of tusks. That reinforces another concept for me - the ability to adapt is also important and has been selected for. Meaning simple genes to define structure are preferable to complex sets of them.

I wouldn't get too attached to that idea... in a lot of cases, having one gene responsible for producing a phenotype can be a very bad thing, like oncogenes (responsible for the growth of cancers) and a bunch that determine development and/or aging.

> On a related note, if "ability to evolve" is a characteristic that can be selected for that would explain why all complex life uses sexual reproduction. Mixing genes offers such advantages that most everything that can't do it is still basically bacteria.

Again, sometimes. There are lizards and bugs that clone themselves (parthanogenesis) which can be really handy for when the population isn't doing so hot.

> but will you pay $500 more for an iPhone? Most people won't.

I really enjoy this thought exercise: what if everything was made ethically and cost reflected that. The world would probably be unrecognizable from what it looks like now.

The original iPod would never have been as wide-spread, for example, because the cost would have made it, truly, a luxury. That's if it was even invented at all, because it's pretty obvious that the iPod wasn't the first consumer electronic. Computers might be only affordable by large corporations, universities, and governments, so most of us here would not be working in the tech industry. Etc.

I think that this is important to remember because it really emphasizes that nearly every aspect of modern life is built on the backs of the disenfranchised. It's impossible to live truly ethically in this system. As a sibling post points out: there's no +$500 ethical iPhone option, so the power is literally out of the hands of the consumers (and I'd argue that having some sort of technology is very nearly required to function in our society, at least in the US).

As the saying goes: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

> I am, however, interested in making organic connections with like-minded individuals. Perhaps like right here, in the comments of HN ;-)

I'd be legitimately interested in discussing your ideas; I'm not sure that this is the best place for that. It looks like I recently made a reddit account if you want to chat: u/KaleidoscopeOdd3338

Fellow engineer here who cares about the same things you report here.

Did you just give up (using that platform)? Did you find a better platform?

I find it really interesting that you love TikTok.

> it's actually fucking awesome for those of us with "neurodiversity".

Can you expand upon that a bit?

How engaged were you with social media before your sentence, and has that (or will that) change now that you've had some space from it?

> we would see the occasional video on the news

How does the picture that the media paints of the internet & social media compare to your observations now that you're able to use it hands-on?

When I lived in SF, sf.funcheap.com was my go-to for this kind of thing, especially random tinder dates.

Everywhere I've lived since has lacked this sort of resource, and it's made meeting people & getting out and exploring much less newbie-friendly.

Maybe I just need to build the change I want to see in the world...

> improving the lives of their customers.

It depends on how you define "improving the lives of"...

Amazon only won the game by undercutting others in the market to the point where they couldn't realistically compete. But those other market players were employing a ton of folks around the country. That's a huge part of what made Amazon's prices unrealistic for brick & mortar stores: people & infrastructure _in the communities they serve_. I fail to see how eliminating jobs & competition does anything other than consolidate wealth and (by not paying those employees) solidify the direction of transfer of wealth in the poor -> wealthy direction.

I think people really misunderstand the effect of moving commerce online. Communities need local services. Communities need goods available locally. Moving employment opportunities away from communities creates a higher barrier for entry into the job market, because now someone needs a car and/or hours-per-day to commute to get to their job.

This isn't even to mention the harm Amazon has done to its employees and contractors (folks in distribution centers & deliver-people have had a lot to say about the working conditions).

I think I see the point you're making, but the stuff that you say that the stimulus money was spent on are the things that result from the US economic inequality: folks tend to save when they _need_ a safety net; folks tend to pay down debts _when they have debts_ (especially those that they didn't feel they could pay down without the stimulus, which are generally larger, such as medical or legal debts); etc.

I own a box of band-aids, way more than enough to patch the cuts and scrapes I'm likely to experience in the near future. If Biden gave me a band-aid, I'd be very likely to hand it to someone else if they needed it, because I know I have my box. On the other hand, if I have no band-aids, and Biden was so generous, I'd probably either save it for my next (inevitable) cut or stick it straight onto one of my open wounds.

This is complicated.

I live in a poor neighborhood in a reasonably large city.

I shop locally (even avoiding the more affluent neighborhoods), exclusively if possible, as a matter of voting with my wallet because the businesses in my neighborhood employ mostly local folks.

At large scale, yeah, you're right. But for a small local business, one or two extra regular customers can be a bigger difference (drop in a bucket vs drop in the ocean). Even something like shopping at a local big-box supports the local proletariat more than shopping at Amazon, where the proletariat isn't guaranteed to be local at all (and to be clear: it's more about supporting the proletariat than the capitalists).

This is one of those things that is true, kind of, but inaccurate.

Generally, we don't have government moratoriums on eviction when the economy hits new highs, nor do we need massive government spending for things like unemployment benefits.

> "The stock market isn't the economy"

This is one of my favorite Kai Ryssdal-isms.

While this is true, it's not true to a lot of people: politicians and us regular-folk alike often equate the stock market's performance to the state of the economy (hence why this is a saying at all).

I like to think of the stock market as an insight into wealth-transfer (from the poor to the rich, obviously... it doesn't flow any other way in the US at this point). When stocks do really well, especially those of service/retail companies, the already-rich are getting richer, generally at the expense of the rest of us.

You bring up a lot of valid questions and points, and I really appreciate the conversation!

> Let's assume that Inflow is (a) actually effective and (b) they drop the questionable opt-out subscription model. Both big assumptions. I have not used the app and am skeptical to say the least. But lets assume it delivers legitimate value/relief/etc.

These are big ifs, particularly because the incentive systems are misaligned. The incentive of the creators are profitability and growth while the incentive of the user is to manage their ADHD.

Ethics, especially concerning survival in the throes of capitalism, are complicated. I question private sector solutions for public sector problems largely because money speaks in politics and I think having money established in an area makes it _harder_ for the public sector to get involved in that area.

> So, how should this app have been created? How would its creators be paid prior to the app earning money?

Putting aside the fact that this app can't diagnose someone, can't provide alternative therapies (pharmaceutical, non-CBT if CBT isn't working, etc.), growth and profitability are not "helping users". I said this elsewhere: if this _is_ going to exist, it should be funded through something like Patreon, where payment is optional and generally is more tied to the app being functional and beneficial (users who love the service are more likely to pay, while those who do not, lose nothing but their time).

> And I was extremely privileged to even be able to do that...

You raise a really good point that I've been wrestling with a lot lately. The ability to not-charge up front is a position of privilege that locks out a lot of folks (e.g. if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck working 2 jobs, they might not be able to afford to take the time to create the next unicorn app that could put food on their plate forever). I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I have answers. I have a friend asking how to ethically be a landlord, and I can't answer her either.

(as an aside: I'd love to spend some of my time just making apps for folks without my privilege, sort of 'pass on' my privilege to those who might need it, but I'm honestly not sure how that would realistically work or how to get started.)

One of my friends likes to remind me that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, in response to which I wonder: how feasible is ethical production under a system with no ethical consumption?

> Also, how the heck do you reconcile this with your stance that people shouldn't try and make money from their apps?

I think I addressed this in my other reply, but I'll reiterate: given the economic system we exist in, I'm not against people making money from their apps, I'm against certain areas better suited to public works being entered by the private sector (especially in a predatory way).

> I would say, "if you can't afford to pay your developers and other employees a living wage, then you can't afford to make an app or launch a product"

I totally agree with this.

> I don't think you've thought any of this through, man.

I try really hard to be internally consistent, but I'm imperfect. I'd be interested in hearing what I'm not thinking through, because I feel like this is an area where I have.

The respond to the quote at the top of your comment: I've been reading & hearing about a lot of restaurant owners complaining that they can't afford to pay their workers a living wage for $REASONS (this happens a lot in restaurants, specifically). My response is exactly what you quoted (and I'll type it again): If you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, then you can't afford to do business. Asking anyone to work for a sub-living wage is essentially asking for them to subsidize your business, and, in an area that differs dramatically from start-ups, these restaurant workers generally aren't given equity as compensation (which would tie their wage to the success of the restaurant).

I'll admit that my thoughts in this area are complicated, because we live in a capitalist community (at least here in the US) so there are some concessions that I have to make. Do I think capitalism is viable in the long run? No. But I also think it is a fool's errand to wait for a revolution, so I think my thoughts get a little more nuanced when it comes to working ethically within an inherently unethical system (and I'm being very liberal with what I consider ethical work, by necessity).

I'd love to keep this conversation going. I know I have a lot to learn & that there's a lot that I don't know that I don't know. Conversations like this, that challenge my ideas, can only lead to a better understanding of my concerns and thoughts.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments.

> People need food and places to live.

Yeah, and under capitalism, these are linked to some capitalist idea of productivity.

We're getting a little far from the original point of this thread, but I'd argue that food & shelter & healthcare shouldn't be linked to "productivity".

I think the way that this is applicable here is that when the private sector gets involved in an issue, it can be a lot harder for the issue to be addressed by the public sector. That's a really big topic, I'd suggest reading Winners Take All[0] for a more in-depth look at this.

I'll leave this at: some things shouldn't be monetized (and this is one of them).

> I would say your incentives don't align.

I'm not sure what you mean. What are my incentives here?

> But app creators should just do it for free?

There are plenty of consumer spaces where I don't complain (publicly) about app-creators getting involved. This, being a "mental health" app, is an area where the public sector getting involved could be detrimental (see my comment elsewhere where I ask if this could be harmful in the long run).

[0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/539747/winners-take...

Yeah, you're right.

TeMPOral's explanation (sibling of my comment you're replying to here) is better than mine.

Is there a way to help out with that? I just take screenshots of recipes on my phone because I hate the modern internet. If I could enter in a url and you could scrape the recipe off of that page, that'd be great (for others).

Out of curiosity, is this a hobby-project or something you're going to try to make money off of?

No results for "falafel".

I really want this to work, I love the filter options that I see (assuming they work) and I'd love to use something like this instead of Google/Bing (where the top-recommendations are all ads or super bloggy).

So, what I mean by "exit" strategy is that they're more interested in going public or being bought out than in providing long-term good (and sustainability). There's a different set of incentives in wanting to exit (high valuation, market competition, etc.) than there is with being a long-term viable, sustainable business (building a reputation, being effective, etc.). The former are a lot more common in SV (it seems to me), but the majority of businesses that survived the 90's and 00's are examples of the latter.

Real therapists operate without an exit strategy. A good therapist isn't building dependence in their clients.

> The trauma is actually a bit higher in drone operators from the moral injury aspect. When you teleoperate a drone you cannot say to yourself that you killed to protect your life and that of your buddies.

That's a really interesting insight. I wonder how well "I did it to protect my country" stands in for those other rationalizations (this is to say, how effective is propaganda at mitigating that effect?). I mean, after the drone murdered a bunch of aid-workers & kids recently (but before we knew that's who ended up dead), our media & political figures were out preaching that they were saving our troops and the vulnerable Afghanis with our drone strikes.

> Unless the CIA is involved with the designs there is a small upside that the robot dogs probably wouldn't be capable of rape at least.

Yeah, that's very true and that's something I hadn't considered, and I appreciate that you added it to the context of this conversation. This just seems like a weird way to deal with the fact that soldiers do a lot of wrong when we're all told that they're fighting for what's right.

You're right, I take a more aggressive stance on this sort of thing than others might. I'm also known to say "if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to do business" of many retail/service environments.

"But I need to make money, too" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. I would agree that the biggest offender is the predatory model, but I would say that the way to do this _correctly_ is to do it free/OSS with a patreon. Let folks who use it pay what they think it's worth.

The problem is that the incentive systems don't align. Someone elsewhere mentioned that this seemed to build dependency in its users (an anti-pattern in therapeutics (and elsewhere, but let's be specific to therapeutics for now)). With something like Patreon, the incentives are much closer aligned: the app _has_ to do good in order to well, because otherwise nobody will pay for it.

Again, they (the developers) could also put their time & energy into enacting systemic change.