wussboy

That is the cart before the horse. Families, and women specifically, need stability and reasonable guarantees that fewer babies will be more likely to survive before they will stop having 4.

No True Scotsman it is.

I love it, but that would never work in the wild. Mine does, for some value of “work”.

I'm totally stealing that. Fantastic.

And, if you want and if the Fates allow, you may have my favourite, completely unappreciated joke:

"A time traveller!" [wait a few seconds] "Knock knock."

"The policeman wore his belt in a way I didn't enjoy, therefore I will take up residence with the drug dealer."

My money is on Facebook. They believe they can survive a court challenge against any competitor because they have almost unlimited resources.

An analogy is not proof. It is not even evidence.

Oof. Like our world needed more of that...

We know that relying heavily on Google Maps makes you less able to navigate without Google Maps. I don't think there's research on this yet, but I would be stunned if the same process isn't at play here.

It does make one wonder why the democrats insist on putting women and racial minorities forward as presidential candidates. Yes, it shouldn’t matter but it apparently really does and was that the hill we wanted to die on? Handing the presidency to Trump?

The government is not trying to solve anything. This is a ploy to generate uncertainty and obedience.

I can’t tell if this is satire or not

I think the slowness is the point. I write in a journal as a way to collect my thought, get new ideas, focus my thinking. I’m always telling myself to slow down, because legibility and intelligence seem to both increase when I do so

Hard disagree. People use rationality to support the beliefs they already have, not to change those beliefs. The internet allows everyone to find something that supports anything.

I do it. You do it. I think a fascinating litmus test is asking yourself this question: “When did I last change my mind about something significant?” For most people the answer is “never”. If we lived in the world you described, most people’s answers would be “relatively recently”.

That’s why we use Firestore

I think it's important to call out the difference between "what I prefer" and "what is good for me". We understand this fully in many aspects of our lives (from "My body prefers to do heroin" to "I prefer not to exercise but I do it because it's good for me").

I see a lot of comments here along the lines of "I prefer to live alone because roommates are a pain in the ass", but I think there might be a lot of value to doing this because it's good for you. Living with other people forces us to corral our worst tendencies, to break out of virtual worlds to engage in the real one, to form bonds that will force us to grow and change.

I think it's strange that our preference in this area, but not many others, could be so dominant over what is good for us.

Out of curiosity, when is the last time you changed your mind about something moral? If you can’t remember the time, it’s petty rich to accuse others of being exactly as close minded as you are.

I don’t think you can become a talented enough software developer to benefit from using AI by using AI. Google Maps causes us to lose the ability to navigate without it. I would not be surprised in the slightest if the same is true with AI.

So. A little boost now. But at the risk of not knowing how to get where you’re going unless someone is holding your hand.

And if that’s the case, how can we possibly get to where we’ve never been before?

I suspect when it comes to human mastery there is no clear dividing line between scaffolding and core, and that both are important.

I’m not even sure it’s the right question. No one knew what the long term effects of the internet and mobile devices would be, so I’m not surprised people thought it was great. Cocoa leaves seemed pretty amazing at the beginning as well. But mobile devices especially have changes society and while I don’t think we can ever put the genie back in the bottle, I wish that we could. I suspect I’m not alone.

I feel like negative opinions are facts.

And if they could find a way to make you pay attention you’d better believe they’d do it in a heartbeat

I’m starting to look at “engagement” as an anti-statistic. Like, if you’re chasing engagement, what other more meaningful thing are you ignoring? Or, the more engagement something has, the less value it has to society.

Full time Firefox user. I run hundreds of tabs for days on end and need to restart it every week or so. Well worth it to not use Chrome. Need to open a site in Chrome about once a month

If history has taught us anything, it's that unless full accounting data is released, there is a reason that full accounting data is not being released, and that reason would almost certainly paint the company in a bad light.

And are LLMs immune to that same SEO garbage race?

Is no one playing steel police?

I have lived in Alberta for the last thirty years, but I see myself as a Canadian. The “us vs them” you embrace makes no sense to me because that’s not where I draw my circles. Alberta is not being robbed by Canada in the same way that me moving funds from checking to savings isn’t robbing my checking account.

Everyone can draw a circle such that they feel aggrieved. But that’s no great feat, nor is it commendable.

Having nothing on your left doesn’t make you leftist. If I drive in the right hand lane and there’s nothing on my left, I am not driving in the left hand lane.

Keep your camera on. Say hello to everyone on your team every morning. Engage in idle chit-chat on Teams.