daenz

Because if the possibility turned out to be true, it would be extremely damaging at a social and political level. Not just on institutions, but on the psyche of people in general. I think everyone understands this at least on a subconscious level. There must not be any truth to it, because if there was, it would do too much damage.

So why would I want people to discuss something that could potentially have that kind of impact? Because I want people to face all of the possible consequences for their choices, not just pick and choose which ones they will consider and acknowledge.

Yes, the article does a fantastic job of claiming their hypotheses as the only possibilities, while dishonestly ignoring others that would more severely undermine confidence in the state.

I'm honestly surprised they're attributing deaths to lockdowns at all! That's a huge shift in the overton window. If you remember, that was also taboo. But I assume now it's ok to talk about because it can be framed in the louder, "not enough funding for healthcare" context.

I can't give you a FAANG perspective, but I can relate to your feelings. Creativity and autonomy are extremely important...I would say some of the most important things in life. Money is important, but often in how it affords you time to be creative and autonomous.

My advice to you is to do the old regret thought experiment: consider your choices and imagine that whichever one you choose, it fails spectacularly. With that in mind (that whatever you choose will fail), which choice do you regret the least?

Dangerous to the people who would impulsively choose to be euthanized?

Power is having people in key positions that can change an outcome when its needed. All of the security in the world doesn't do any good if the humans enforcing it are compromised.

Is it a weakness to only commit on majority consensus? I'm thinking of a very unstable global network, where partitions are happening everywhere. In that scenario, only one cluster can reach consensus (if you're lucky). If the partitions are such that no cluster has majority, nothing can proceed.

Is there a better way to proceed with tentative consensus, until a majority cluster can be realized, and then have a conflict resolution strategy? People operate this way.

50% of Americans can't read a book written at an 8th grade reading level[0]. It's one of the reasons politicians don't use jargon and fancy words. I think they'd probably laugh if you told them they should be talking above their constituents' understanding.

0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/...

One person's "dumb writing down" is another person's "communicating effectively."

Is your goal to (try to) teach people new words, or to communicate your points?

We know for sure one is true. The other is still TBD. Publications should be more forthcoming about that.

Related, in June 2022, the EPA changed its guidelines, which is directly triggering this news cycle about all water being unsafe to drink.

In other words, the sky is not falling, we've just adjusted the definition of where the sky starts.

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-advisories-pf...

I dug around a little bit and couldn't find a source supporting either of our claims. I did find verified examples of crypto miners in cracked software[0]. I think the threat landscape for cracks has probably changed with the rise of crypto mining.

0. https://decoded.avast.io/danielbenes/crackonosh-a-new-malwar...

Except now you probably installed malicious code on your system.

And is now token-based. According to this[0], tokens are $3 a pop. A "basic study" simulation costs 3 tokens ($9) and an "advanced study" simulation costs 6 tokens ($18). Imagine how quickly you could rack up charges as you iterate on a design.

0. https://www.autodesk.com/benefits/flex?term=500&tab=flex

>Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn’t be here. And part of my hope by raising expectations and having more aggressive goals, and just kind of turning up the heat a little bit, is that I think some of you might just say that this place isn’t for you. And that self-selection is okay with me.

He might realize that nobody cares about Facebook, they just care about their fat compensations for relatively little work (according to him). Honestly, aside from the experience of working with technology at that scale, are there a lot of other reasons to work at Facebook? I think we all are recognizing its had its time in the spotlight and its on its way out.

Would it? I understand your point, but the counterpoint is that the leaders are in a position to make big changes if something is broken. They could attempt to push some simple change and see glaring process and onboarding problems, which nobody has been interested in prioritizing, and then make them top priority, saving everyone time.

Don't leak whether or not the phone number belongs to an account. All failed login attempts should be some form of "Invalid login" regardless of whether or not it was an attempt against an actual account or not.

"Your honor, I had a change of heart during the trial."

Reminds me of the killing of Ken McElroy[0]

>In all, there were 46 potential witnesses to the shooting, including Trena McElroy, who was in the truck with her husband when he was shot. No one called for an ambulance. Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness either was unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots. The DA declined to press charges. An extensive federal investigation did not lead to any charges. Missouri-based journalist Steve Booher described the attitude of some townspeople as "He needed killing."

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy#1981_killing

Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.

This is an extremely smug and tone-deaf take on the deterioration of trust in public health institutions and messaging.

They reference covid in their abstract, so it's fair game to discuss here: where was the scientific objective-truth-machine when the Noble Lies[0] where being told? It was silent and complicit.

The general public is not as knowledgeable as experts, but they can sense when they're being lied to, or when political bias is distorting the messaging, and they don't like it. When they can't trust the experts, they fall back on their own lack of knowledge, for which they are now being mocked. But lying to and manipulating people means they won't trust you, no matter how much of an expert you provably are.

This study seems to want to make it simply about the Dunning-Kruger[1] effect, which puts most of the blame on the average person, while ignoring why people feel like they can't trust experts in the first place.

  0. https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

That's a good point. Sounds like the beginning of a death spiral caused by bad management decisions.

Well, if Ubisoft starts to see a sales hit from these shenanigans that is greater than the development costs for the migration, I think they'll be able to summon the willpower to accomplish the task.

Even just half-assing it and asking the community to help would make a lot of people happy. People reverse-engineer closed games/consoles/services all the time. That's what a lot of cheat patches are anyways.

>Closing the online services for some older games allows us to focus our resources on delivering great experiences for players who are playing newer or more popular titles.

Then release a container image of your last working server software so that anyone can host it privately. And release a patch to the games to allow pointing at a private server.

Honestly reads like some bizarre social experiment by the organizers. Conditions degrade for a few days and then put Limp Bizkit on stage to play "Break" for an angry audience. Give everyone candles and then have RHCP play "Fire". C'mon.

Crowds are incredibly stupid and malleable. Someone knew things would get out of hand.

Say more about your situation.

I have a lot of alone time, even though I live with my partner. I don't have coworkers, kids, family, or friends, so if I'm not with my partner, I'm alone.

Being swamped always made me feel like I should take longer to complete tasks, to protect myself from the stress of working too hard for too long. Then I realized how insane that is...why should I artificially make myself a less productive person? It's like picking up a bad habit, like smoking.

Imo the real issue is that management needs to learn how to identify people who actively seek out work as their default state, and not heap work onto them. These people naturally try to work close to their limit, so adding more work does not make them more productive.

Exactly, why would a high performer want to subsidize the lower performers with their own salary? Just go somewhere that will continue to pay top market rate.

I built a Pi server not too long ago, and had it host my personal knowledge wiki for things that I needed to remember. I was very proud of it.

Eventually though, I realized that having a screen and a keyboard is critical for how I was using it. I may not always have a machine on the network that can SSH into the Pi server. So I eventually settled on using an old laptop instead. Much more performant, and if the network goes down, I can still access the information easily.

Thanks for keeping it civil, I appreciate it! The capped compensation is for the "they're paid too much" angle. Removing autonomy in hiring is for the "they're undeserving/corrupt" angle. That way there's a different process for hiring that isn't corrupted by nepotism/cronyism.

I'm not trying to sound like I'm discrediting your experience or feelings, but I only really have your side of what happened, so of course your experience will sound justified from your perspective. There's a lot of possibilities for why that could have happened, not including ones that nobody could know about except upper management.

You responded to my point about about capped compensation or removing autonomy, so I think you understand what my point is: the anger people are expressing, including so-called "righteous anger," is totally hypocritical unless you are advocating for measures that would also apply to you. If you're not willing to commit to those measures, then you're just expressing jealousy that it's not you in that situation.