antareus

I'd be glad to visit that one as well.

I understand that they want the day to go well, since it is significant. But there's no need to step on people to achieve it.

The problem is a cultural narrative of "this is my perfect day!" This is what creates bridezilla out of otherwise very nice (but, not self-aware-enough) women.

Yes, but I still think there's a problem with conspicuous consumption. What, exactly, does it mean when someone buys a luxury car? It certainly doesn't reflect on their character, or what they've contributed to society. All it does is signal that they have enough money to spend on an overly expensive car. And what, exactly, does that mean?

All it means is they have money. That's it.

Or, at least, that's what it should mean. Unfortunately, people still talk about cars as if they actually matter, when, in reality, they're just means to an end.

(Yes, I know people can enjoy cars, and they should. My gripe is with the perception of luxury cars as being an inevitable upgrade from other cars for reasons that seem steeped in consumerism.)

This sounds like the story of my life. The best way to deal with it is to...leave?

It feels like there is something pressing against me when I give a damn. I mean, the result is appreciated, but I feel like the culture around me hates me for being willing to make the sacrifice necessary to get there.

> "Brands are a signal of self-worth," said Gavan Fitzsimons, professor of marketing and psychology at Duke. "We're signaling to others that we care about ourselves and that we feel good about ourselves and that we matter in this world. It's more than 'I'm hip or cool'...I'm a worthwhile person, and I matter, and you should respect me and think that I'm a good person, because I've got the D&G on my glasses."

How is this not satire? It is one of the most depressing things I've ever read.

Heaven forbid people be more productive when they could be clocking exactly eight hours like good little automatons.

Yep. The only justifiable use I've run across is internal bookkeeping in a class library across an API that doesn't provide space for context and you need lazy initialization.

Not all patterns are equal. Of the GoF patterns, I'd say there are a few that are important to know: factory, observer, and visitor spring to mind. (Then there's the singleton pattern...)

Acceptance is the first step towards wholeness.

> When I am on FB too much, I sometimes get the feeling I am looking through a window at social scenes in which I am conspicuously absent.

Absolutely. You get the distinct feeling that you are watching other people enjoying life instead of actually having fun in your own life. In the times I am on FB too much, I know, at some level, that I'm looking to connect more meaningfully with people. But I'm confusing knowing about someone with having a relationship with that person. It's like pornography for the shy. And, just like pornography, it also feels so...empty. There's a certain social code that prohibits you from simply striking up conversation randomly with "friends" on a status update. I mean, you can, but it is risky.

Facebook is vanity, pure and simple. It is your personal PR machine. Ideas are not valued as they are, they're always filtered by what your "friends" think of you. More anonymous sites, such as HN, fare better in this regard. The demographics of the users also have a huge effect. FB will be abuzz with something like football teams winning/losing, but few will put up anything you wouldn't find on a generic, boring web portal, such as MSN. The "Like" feature only reinforces this lowest common denominator conformity.

I regularly question my use of the site. In subsequent stages of life I can easily see myself not having an account at all. I can only hope their walled garden approach fails somehow, because my generation is not smart enough to wake up from the always-connected narcotic that is web 2.0.

The undue emphasis on superficial happiness dissuades people with a healthy range of emotions. I inherited a melancholy disposition from my parents and tend to gloss over it socially. People don't know what to do with it, and that is their fault, as I can only be myself. This creates a strange tension: do they like me when life is good, or all the time? This tension is exacerbated further by being relatively young (28), single (meaning I should always be auditioning for a mate, or something), and, worst of all, existing within a culture (Christianity) that prizes the "has it all together" facade.

My response to all this is learning the games that make up surface-level social interactions and getting good at them. It is definitely faking it, but sometimes you stumble on someone who can talk and listen in equal amounts, at which point I know I can cut the bullshit.

1. If this is true, whatever mechanism the loneliness uses to spread is probably also the cue for some people to disengage. You know, when things get kinda rough and you talk to people, they sort of pull back a little, as if you don't have as much to offer. They somehow know something's up...probably from a slew of very subtle nonverbal cues.

2. I've often felt that Facebook creates more loneliness because it encourages a sort of fake, communal happiness. People generally want to put their best foot forward since their thoughts are broadcast immediately to everyone. And if someone deviates from this often enough they're shunned. I really don't know what the solution is, other than to not use Facebook. It's almost like FB has a spiritual 'cost' associated with it.

I only have anecdotal evidence to share, but, take it for what it is worth.

I'd noticed that many people aren't always good judges of character and will fall for illusory confidence. IMO, this explains why there is undue emphasis in certain areas of life on social litmus tests: actual character evaluation is time-consuming, difficult, and requires a certain amount of introspection. So the test becomes a heuristic that works more often than not, and is relied upon. (I like to "whimsically" mention my past history of LAN gaming on 3rd dates as a way to assess how judgmental/uptight they are.)

The upshot is that other people's perceptions of you are way more malleable than you might believe...as is your own perception of yourself.

Ultimately, social exchanges are something of a game, and can be exploited.

This sounds like my story, but it took me much longer. However, I don't view myself as alpha or beta, merely someone with confidence who will assert myself if necessary. I think I view the alpha term with derision due to pick-up artists elevating it to be the point of one's life. The emphasis on it reeks of someone needing social redemption of sorts; as if they've committed a heinous sin against society at large by not quite fitting the mold. I've seen a few people sacrifice parts of themselves at this altar; hell, I'm pretty sure I have, somewhere along the way.

Power dynamics are all bullshit (which practically begs for satire), but not playing is a guaranteed loss. I just feel like it doesn't have to be like this, but it is. It disturbs me on an aesthetic level.

So, after you're the "alpha dog," what happens? Do all the babes start liking you? Have you finally made it?

I realize that power has an effect on social relationships of every kind, but the these sorts of articles always strike me as addressing the symptoms of a problem (such as low self-confidence) rather than the problem itself. This is probably because the root of the problem is not a simple prescriptive fix. They also assume on some level that you should strive to have the upper hand in every encounter, which is unrealistic and off-putting. The need to be the "alpha dog" does nothing to abate feelings of insecurity, as you're still engaged in a constant cycle of judgment and one-upping others.

Why do we encourage people to remain in this cycle? Oh, right, we've all been told we have to be "alpha."

Whatever that means.

D seems to be more sensitive to these concerns than other languages, at least as of late. Classes can be marked as "auto", which indicates they are to be destructed deterministically. I think this is a more elegant solution than requiring users to opt-in to proper semantics, though requiring the auto specifier at the use-site would make things more explicit.

Also, most languages have some sort of thread-based tasking framework that can make it easier to implement async message-passing based concurrency.

Thank you. This comment is a breath of fresh air amongst the cries of, "but, it's just evolution that makes us want to hoard money!" That sort of attitude strikes me as fatalistic. Success is what you want it to be, not what you're told it should be. Even if evolution has drilled into us the need to accumulate wealth, that doesn't mean you have to accept it. I want to make things, and make them well. That is success for me.

I abhor the dating scene, because it perpetuates the morally bankrupt power dynamics that make up shallow value assessments of individuals. People's identities are shattered and reduced to a 3-tuple of salary, IQ, and waistlines.