zug_zug

It's very rare that I see an article on a topic like this that seems to be succinct, not assume any existing knowledge, and make me leave feeling more informed in < 80 seconds. Maybe personal taste, but I love it.

As somebody who's good at RCA, I'm worried all my embarrassed coworkers are going to take at face value a tool that's confidently incorrect 10% of the time and screw stuff up more instead of having to admit they don't know something publicly.

It'd be less bad if the tool came to a conclusion, then looked for data to disprove that interpretation, and then made a more reliably argument or admitted its uncertainty.

> conspiracy theory

?

We all live in this interconnected thing called a "culture." Maybe you've heard of it. It affects what we all do it at all times, the clothes we wear, what we value, who we strive to be, and where we spend most of our money.

In fact, some people would even give up their lives if the cultural pressure told them to. I bet most people are so heavily subjected to the pressures of cultures that they wouldn't violate harmless cultural norms for $1,000 a day (e.g. crossdressing).

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

No playing sports for sure is fun and normally authentic behavior. Especially if it's not a particularly "cool" sport (e.g. pickleball). Though of course you definitely do find those people who make "Playing a sport" their personality and spend a ton of money on all the clothes and equipment and never seem to actually be out there doing it, especially if it's a "status" sport like polo/golf.

I don't mean to present this as entirely black-and-white. But also if you think that the interest in poker in college-aged-boys spiking after Casino Royale is a coincidence I think you're kidding yourself.

I like the idea, on principle, any attempt to build community should be supported.

I'm may not be the target audience if this is recently post-college, but the thing that strikes me is these activities feel a bit performatively male.

I guess my hot-take is there are certain things that people genuinely love (e.g. improv, dnd, video games, rock-climbing) perception be damned, and there are certain things that people do because they are socially acceptable stereotypes for males: drink craft beer, whiskey, poker, grilling, sports? And that it's about 20x easier to make real friends from the former than the latter.

My experience has always been if somebody says "Come over for poker night," it's gonna be much more awkward than if somebody says "Come over because I'm gonna play video games on the couch and smoke a joint and it'd be fun to have somebody to chat with while I do that." [I'd be curious to hear where other people fall on that topic]

Anyways, not to discourage your current tack, nor even say you should do a blunts and video-games event, but I just think some of the activities on the website seem branded to a very narrow type of guy (business majors? for lack of a better stereotype)

Is this really how this works? Do you have a source?

Also… in this situation does klarna get any of that 1340 or does Alice just delete the app?

I think this would be more informative if it dropped all moral pretense and just talked about the economics objectively. If we’re gonna call a spade a spade, bnpl is one of a dozen services that extracts money from those whose judgment we doubt (like gambling, lottery, junk food?, drugs, overpriced status-symbol vehicles, or even “digital goods”).

So... what happened?

Did 2 hours a week work? Is it profitable now? Is it your only job? If so how many years of 2 hours a week did it take to become a livable income?

I love this philosophy of beating out the enshittification and not hypergrowing.

I disagree. 1% issue aside - There are things Trump has done that have no American precedent, such as Jan 6th, openly insisting he'll run for a 3rd term, and too many others to list here. In that sense he is absolutely an aberration.

Sounds like apple really needs a better review/appeal process, official set of standards, etc. Seems like it's bad for their ecosystem at this point.

> Come on, time to get offline and go make some friends.

Oof, I really struck a nerve huh?

I'm sure you're smart enough to know you shouldn't try to hurt people's feelings just because they believe and idea that you don't believe.

I don't know, that seems like a rather defensive response to me. Perhaps self-reflection is in order.

Is the idea that friendship might be transactional too scary a thought to consider head on?

Here's some science on the topic that is food for thought: https://www.thecut.com/2016/05/half-of-your-friends-probably...

>> What is a close friend? Before we can start asking people if they have any we should probably agree on a definition. If you use the Hollywood standard, then probably none of us have close friends.

I've come to this same conclusion, but rarely express it because it's possible I'm just different. And I'd even go one step further, I think what a lot of people say friendship is, isn't actually what human friendship is in practice. I think these unrealistic expectations undermine real-world friendships because they always fall short.

Theoretical friendship:

- Completely perfect and devoid of all realities of life

- No jealousy, no competition, no negative feelings

- Timeless and immortal

- No effort involved

- Completely balanced and healthy for everybody at all times

- Able to talk about every topic

Realistic friendship:

- Temporary at first, may or may not build into something more

- Often starts with a simple exchange of banter on common interests

- Multiple opinions/topics that are mutually avoided

- One person often tries harder, one person often values the relationship more

- The relationship may or may not even be mutually healthy

- Many will hit a point where they become more effort than they're worth and end (e.g. moving)

- Some will never grow out of one or two common things to bitch about

Cool, but I wish it said how the participants subjectively would have described the experience.

I don't know... I bought an expensive mic with a budget at a prior role, but it kept picking up background noise more than my mac would, and ultimately it's sitting in the garage.

The difficulty of testing, getting feedback, setting audio devices reliably, muting, adjusting settings (my mic had literally 5 different audio forms, all of which picked up too much background noise), etc made it seem like a huge nightmare for potentially inferior results.

I'm sorry, what?

Most of us would trade our jobs in an instant for a nice fang role where we had 0 oncall. I don't think that option is on the table for everybody.

Kinda feels like a nothing article. Seems to suggest epigenetic changes without establishing causation or even whether they are are good or bad changes.

This is important because what I've heard (and checked via chatgpt) is that non-smoking consumption of cannabis is protective against certain cancers. Though again many substances (e.g. coffee) are protective against a dozen cancers and but increase risk of a dozen other cancers.

I feel like there are two approaches that are never gonna work: self-control and asking companies to change.

I think there is an obvious answer though: taking control of the algorithm via AI. I don't think we're there yet, but it's gotta be a matter of time until somebody makes a local AI agent that browses all these feeds and then filters them to your satisfaction (x% about politics, y% upbeat, z% violence, z% about video games).

Well you normally don't have perfect information. Imagine you're woken up in the middle of the night by a window breaking, you hear somebody coming down the hall, and there's a strange figure in your doorway. In the worst cases you could be moments from death or sexual assault, or perhaps there's no violent intent at all.

Are you obligated to wait until you have evidence of violent intent to use a gun?

Well a few thoughts. I feel like your question is trying to excuse reckless disregard (at best) as mere incompetence.

I don't think if you sum up all the value on all the leases of wasted buildings it would be a drop in the bucket against the psychological damage (e.g. distrust in the system) being caused by this administration. Like unless it's more than 1% of the national budget (i.e. > 67 billion a year) then it isn't worth the chaos.

And a competent administration that wanted to end leases really shouldn't have started RTO, so let's try not to fabricate plausible deniability here.

Wow, I think you've just become iconic to dozens of us (self included). Congrats on taking life's lemons and turning them into sweet victory.

I saw in another comment you were able to make yourself work with complete focus (8 hour+ days 7 days a week). I have two questions --

In hindsight, if you had only worked 5 hour days for twice as many months do you think the project still could have succeeded? Or do you feel that there's some momentum or other factor at play here?

Nextly, are there any discords or other networking resources that you found crucial to the process? I saw you mentioned a publisher. Personally I'm more motivated when I have people depending on me (or eager to see what I'm making for example).

There is indoor lettuce I can buy at my supermarkets that is "zero pesticide" (you can just google it and find several, don't want to post any sort of links to products here).

I suspect it's hydroponic.

I'm finding this draft article pretty confusing, and am not sure why it's shared in its current state. I think it should also cite sources.

> "However, the average ketamine “user” consumes 500-1000mg

My impression was that the majority who try ketamine do it a handful of times in their whole lives, usually <200mg.

Very eloquently stated.

I think socially we have mental-model of what a "good" job, or "good" life is, and this model is largely based on certain capitalistic/individualistic assumptions.

We tell ourselves that being isolated, feeling useless, feeling blamed, being punched in the stomache once doesn't really matter and aren't real problems if we get paid a lot.

So we save up a lot of money, but we aren't happy (despite insisting we should be), and ironically no amount of money can purchase back what we gave up -- a sense of purpose, respect, community, etc.

A friend once asked "What would be your ideal job if you had F-you money?" and my answer was "The field wouldn't matter that much, just a job where I had coworkers who genuinely liked and respected each other and cared about what we did." He couldn't understand me and kept repeating "No what field though, if you could choose?"

Yes… that’s my point…

Curious if those who were incensed by “performative wokeness” have any insights to offer on this phenomenon… or if their anger around semantics only cuts one way

Edit: feel free to downvote, but if you think you have a point other than hurt feelings do share

I think it only takes a few moments of skepticism to show that "Is X the most important thing about being a Y?" doesn't mean anything.

Being good at something obviously comes down to multiple different skills (manager may require social skills, writing skills, perception, business acumen, intuition, etc). So to try to ask which of those skills is "most" important is a poorly-defined problem, because there isn't such a thing as an 1-unit of of writing skill to weigh against 1-unit of intuition skill.

For whatever reason, a lot of people are drawn to these types of oversimplifications that are so drastic they become meaningless.

I think this is a decent article, with some distilled wisdom... Though I also think it has some repeating status-quo mumbo-jumbo.

Every time somebody says a soft-science claim and presents it as a fact, I try to vet it with this heuristic: It can't just sound good, or satisfying, but is it actually true? Imagine whether a case can be made for the exact opposite statement, or whether there may be circumstances that the statement is obviously false.

For example, once a principal engineer asserted rather confidently, "At my level, the most important work you can do is usually in Jira." That's a claim that's hard to assess with any objectivity, but I can certainly imagine a different principal engineer feeling the exact opposite, and I can certainly think of many companies where they wouldn't hire/want a principal engineer primarily for Jira work.

Back to this article, any time somebody says "A manager is X" or a "staff is X" I think to myself... well can I think of a company that would want managers who focus almost entirely on not X? The answer is almost always yes.

I won’t presume to suggest a cause, but it’s worth acknowledging how terrifying it is that any of a number of compounds in a relatively small dose could cause wild effects on the human mind or body.

My intuition is that if there isn't capitalism/meritocracy within your company (i.e. competitive forces that allow superior people to move levels quickly) then the company itself will be more subject to selection pressure against other more fit competitor companies (that do utilize the more talented "resources" for the more important tasks)