fmxsh

I feel the article takes a widely useful human capability and isolates it to a set of negative, socially contingent actions. Revenge is a social thing. Anger is not necessarily social.

I can get angry at the mess and thus promptly put things in order.

It seems to me Nelson Mandela used his anger strategically. It wasn't that he wasn't angry, and that the derivatives of non-anger were the golden solution. After all, as the article mentions—but here in my phrasing—his strategy collapses into violence when non-violence won’t work, and then virtuously claims it is based in non-anger (the favored party always uses violence "correctly" and instrumentally as a last resort, while the opponents are seen as just angry and violent). Mandela was angry, but he used it under the disguise of a set of virtues he deemed superior to those he hated. He likely idealized himself as a non-violent person, but was deeply angered—and, in my view, there's nothing wrong with that. His strategy being a long-term one. I do not know too much about Mandela, and these are my speculations grounded mostly in psychological observations, which makes me not easily believe things are as they appear.

Anger is highly productive in an often harsh evolutionary framework.

The quality of the community seem to depends on the level of effort each member has to put into formulating their input.

X, Reddit etc are low effort.

I evaluated X for similar purpose. It felt useful but really wasn't to me. X has the "building in public", but it generally stimulates clickbailt style interaction, and strong focus on irrelevant details because colorful things draw attention more than deeper things. It easily becomes a distraction because of the dopamine centered habits developed.

I suggest GitHub. Upload your projects, however small. It's often good learning experience to iterate over old projects and improve, rather than forgetting code deep in some folder structure later lost in data migration. Engage with projects you like, by participating in their discussion page and more.

ChatGPT etc in my experience is superior to broad style community interaction.

Apparently there is a lot going in to fingerprinting a browser (Tsl analysis, HTTP headers etc), and changing User Agent string is definitely not enough. By accepting only major browsers, smaller ones are forced to adopt the same standard. Seems it would create a market for standardized bots. The result would be a monoculture of browsers and more advanced standardized bots.

One way is query your ip, retrieve certificates, read the domain(s) in it.

I made my server return self signed certificate without domain name in it, in case of access to wevserver's port 433 by ip instead of by domain name.

Did I just read:

> "This will begin with [targeting clearly objectionable content], but we may consider expanding this in the future [to opinions we do not like]."

And further down:

> "It is everyone’s collective responsibility [to ensure no one disagrees with us] ..."

I do see the problem of moderation, but don't think this in itself is a good solution long-term.

Without any deeper exploration, the article comes to an abrupt end, with a link suggesting helping a git project; a git project with the expressed desire of having you participate.

Glad to see this pointed out. I see a lot of complaints that AI "does it all for you," but my experience is that AI removes the time and effort barrier between intention and the acquisition of knowledge, creating high pressure for those interested in exploring a system. Also, it allows for quick learning through the practical application of theories toward a goal of interest. Typically, the best learning, as argued in pedagogy, is situated in one's sense of the knowledge's relevance in the tangible world.

I remember Eclipse! That was something like 20 years ago I used it last time. Thanks for bringing back some memories.

Setting up an efficient terminal environment is overwhelming. I do it as a hobby and enjoy the tinkering. Thanks to GPT the process is quicker. But I spent a lot of time just setting up a basic environment.

I was exploring why Linux terminal environment is so powerful compared to Windows terminal. Windows is built at the kernel level to support graphics and GUI, while *nix systems are built with terminal at the core. Thus Windows historically has had way more powerful GUIs. They are two different domains of power. Each of them also trying to do what the other does better.

Looks very smooth!

However, from my perspective, the extensive need to drag windows around and resize them is a habit of windows environment. So, perhaps, this is for the mouse what tmux and Neovim are for the keyboard.

In tmux, the window layouts I need are fixed sets of 2x2 panes, with some predefined ways of resizing them and toggling full-screen. With effective tools like telescope and nvim, the need to line all windows up disapears, because the switching is so efficient and I have more of a mental picture than a visual one of what's available. For example, no need for the file tree commonly to the left in most IDEs.

That's why I rather keep HTML limited than embracing something like Svelt (which I haven't heard of before). Looking at it's inline syntax in the example, it is yet another something to learn. Yet another thing with peculiarities to keep track of, solving one kind of problem but introducing more complexity by spreading logic out (taking logic from one place and putting in another creates an additional relationship which is a relationship with that from which the logic was taken: Svelt and JS has to coexist and may for example overlap).

My favorite experience of shifting logic is writing a template engine in PHP. PHP is a template engine. I soon discovered I tried to replicate more and more PHP feestures, like control flow etc. I realize PHP did a way better job being a template engine. (This does not disqualify all use of said things, just that all seemingly good use cases aren't motivated, and may not turn out as expected.)

Thank you for your answer. As a casual observer, I was genuinely curious. I am not well-versed in foreign policy, so I'll leave it at that.

From HN guidelines:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, [...], unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

What is the interesting new phenomenon this is supposed to be evidence of? (The question is not intended to be a statement.)

I find speedrunning fascinating. Like a microcosm of society to study human behavior. How the wins and losses of one generation of players shape the next, pushing the art beyond what was thought possible. A generation of strategies and perception of the limits in speedrunnig, in my view, can be just a few years.

Cheaters. Their motives. The attempts to expose them. The creative and not-so-creative ways they cheat. The equally creative ways they are caught. The border between trust and distrust. The psychological need for fame and belonging. Honor. Hierarchy. Tradition. Breakthroughs.

Technology. Strategies. Outside-the-box thinking. Advanced analysis. Statistics. Reverse engineering.

The psychology of the player. Persistence. Stress. Pressure. Adaptation.

Carl Jobst's youtube channel of course is recommended. But also 'Summoning Salt', and 'Bismut'.

For background media, I found recordings of speedruns [0] with player commentary to strike the right balance, not being too distracting, yet giving a pleasant atmosphere (when, for example programming).

[0] for example as found on YouTube.

> "She reports that many middle and high schools in the US have turned away from literary texts in favour of short passages to enable the better teaching and testing of information skills that are directly relevant to the workplace."

I would suspect that the inability to comprehend longer texts correlates with lesser ability in "theory of mind," [0] which is part many other abilities.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

Out of curiosity, I made a simple analysis of the 10 parts of the article in the given order. I then counted the recurring themes.

A) Skill/approach

B) Relating to people

B) Relating to people

C) Self-development (by relating to knowledgeable people)/learning

A) Skill/approach

B) Collaboration/relating to people

B) Negotiation/collaboration/relating to people

B) Communication/relating to people

A) Skill/approach/understanding organizational context

C) Learning/approach

Summary:

A) Skill, 3

B) Relating to people, 5

C) Learning, 2

The analysis shows that relating to people is central. Let's assume my analysis of the 10 parts is accurate. Does this reflect the optimal distribution? Are there other distributions that would be suitable? What determines the distribution? These are a few questions for contemplation.

It wasn't clear to me from the article, but japan has had a lot of experience with reformation.

Thank you for asking! My phrasing may not have been the most clear.

My background is in humanities and health care. I currently work in eldercare. Computers have always been a major interest of mine since an early age, but professionally I have taken another route. I have a general curiosity about systems and theories of different kinds. I do have an education in the basic scientific approach, something I acquired while studying to become a teacher. Soft sciences have often come more easily to me. I lack the benefits of a disciplined study of computer science, something I am sure affects my approach.

My use of the word 'emergent' was inspired by systems theory [0], where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The parts of a system create emergent behaviors or phenomena. For example: A football team consists of several players, and the strategy of the teamwork is an emergent phenomenon. Similarly, my thought was that when functions are spread out into several modules, they may create unexpected emergent complexity. Without being able to give a concrete example off the top of my head, I think I have struggled with bugs born out of such complexity.

My thought was that the "syntactical encapsulation" (the actual code we write) may not serve the "conceptual class" (the idea we have). We may have a good concept, but we distribute its functionality among too many classes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Thank you for an interesting categorization and highlighting dynamics between the categories.

Reading the article, I get the sense that being more specific in communication is a sign of better performance capability, whereas generalized communication hints at the opposite.

> "One way to tell a weak engineer in a discussion thread about some problem is to see who is bringing in specific facts about how the system currently works, and who is making purely general recommendations that could apply to any system."

This observation of specific versus general communication seems to surface also when being asked a question. If the question is specific, it hints at competence and effort.

> "One tactic is to avoid time-asymmetrical helping. Don’t do work for them that takes much more time than it took them to ask about it."

The general question offloads, to the one being asked, the work of getting down to concrete details. A specific question on the other hand relies on the questioner having done the cognitive work of comprehension before asking.

A general question deserves a counter question that encourages the questioner to become more specific. In a real world environment, I can imagine—just as the article also points out—there being many factors like stress etc, influencing the communication.

Academia implies and requires a disciplined way of approaching a subject. I stand at the very opposite end. My computer engagement has not been subject to such structure and demands. I have only been engaging recreationally—it is my main spare time interest.

I benefit from the crude experience of reviewing my past and seeing almost all my computer-related projects have vaporized as fading memories. Even that colorful ASCII art I made in DOS in the '90s which I wish I kept for nostalgia, is gone. Why didn't I at least have the structured intention to archive things—seriously—I ask myself.

It is easy to be regretful, but their vaporization helps me see these things have little inherent value to my aging self. Being in my forties, I still have a glowing interest for my own projects—and my projects are many. However, in the darkness of the crude awakening to reality, and looking both back and forward 20 years, I have a deep sense these projects of today don't matter as much as I feel they do right now. There comes an "after".

This opens to existential questions, but my answer doesn't lie in that realm. Such answers and convictions are a bonus, but I know that aging mercilessly also takes away such convictions in the agony and the overpowering process of aging. My answer to what the crucial things are, is...

I work in the field of health care and I am daily close witness to the possible adversity of aging and old age. What I have come to see is that the most crucial thing is... to keep your mobility of body and mind as far as you can. Guard and cultivate your long term health.

My neighbor died in his sleep at 87. The same year he would be out painting the house. That's the end I aspire. Stay motivated fighting every second while being here. The fighting, and for the sake of it, gives me a sense of meaning that transcends every past achievement or lack thereof.

I reflect a lot on the past, both on time spent with entertainment or 'infotainment' like watching YouTube as well as projects I may have undertaken. I ask myself what the long term gain is. Earlier in life I may had felt I have unlimited time. Not so anymore. Reflecting this way helps me rule out things I don't value.

I built a set of scripts to fully automate my Linux installation process from live to bootstrap to target environment. It includes a way to build a snapshot of the system in use. The snapshot is sourced by the installation script. The system consists of a general system to handle snapshots and the specific snapshots themselves. A snapshot consists of specific scripts to configure the system (partition disk, bootloader, configure network, and etc) and a directory tree mirroring the target system.

It is meant to be used in an iterative process where I easily update the snapshot as I make changes to my system in use. The purpose is to not have to spend time trying to figure out how the system was configured in case it crashes. I should be able to restore my system with minimal trouble.

I use this for my local computer and simpler servers I operate. The project has been a fantastic way to learn Linux.

> "Having too many shallow modules can make it difficult to understand the project. Not only do we have to keep in mind each module responsibilities, but also all their interactions."

Not only does it externalize internal complexity, but it creates emergent complexity beyond what would arise between and within deeper modules.

In a sense, shallow modules seem to be like spreading out the functions outside the conceptual class while thinking the syntactical encapsulation itself, rather than the content of the encapsulation, is the crucial factor.

> "Encrypted DNS Proxy and adding ShadowSocks for WireGuard to enhance obfuscation for customers that truly need it."

Seems like the user base is wider than what would be addressed by the most basic use of VPN. Mullvad would then serve a greater purpose than what many, or at least I, would be aware of.

Adding to this:

Coming to the interview stage, carry yourself with confidence when explaining the 5+ year gap. Do not fall into assuming it was wasted time because you didn't reach a target goal. Maybe that assumption will be unconsciously conveyed to whoever you speak to. Examine your conclusion about the past engagement. View it as part of a constant learning experience to get better. Base the confidence on the fact that you bravely chose to throw yourself into new difficult territory. In discussing any of the gap, focus on what the challenges were, what your plan was, what you learned, and where you aspire to go next.

I hope a positive essence can be seen here beyond any oversimplification I may have made. There likely are more practical things to consider as well. My point is to also work on framing one's past engagement in a positive light as part of learning, not as a conclusive failure.

Thinking of it, and asking ChatGPT: “AI-driven research on the Bible has vast potential for academic study, theological exploration, ..."

I've been working on a persistent solution for this for a few months now, which involves changing lifestyle habits. My programming and system administration is fully recreational but still requires disciplined focus.

The solution seems to be between strictness of discipline and what enables a creative joyful flow state of mind. Fundamentally I aim for a bedrock of supportive routines within which I can enable a creative flow state contrary to haphazardly shifting from one thing to another. To be driven by determination with focus at will rather than submission to the path of least resistance with hours wasted on amusement. Identify what gives long term reward. Then break away from all that is clearly not having long term reward. Exchange it for anything else that is productive, and like simply going for a walk or cleaning the room.

Key factors to solve are:

Easily resume a project and switch between different ones. A way to structure and manage projects.

Cultivate and further psychological and physical supporting focus at will.

Minimize work related concerns spilling over into spare time. I discipline to keep concerns within their respective time frames.

Reduce energy going to things not prioritized and spend that time on recovery and rest in a suitable form.

Make serious use of a calendar to structure at least the basic events. Do moderate physical exercise after work time. Take breaks from programming; breaks that don't involve the computer (for example go for a walk, house cleaning etc).

Finding the complete solution still is an ongoing project of mine. I basically I think it's about mapping out and solidifying a daily routine that is constantly being refined.

Thanks for an interesting read! I can relate to this.

Putting effort into tools to increase diagnostics comprehension pays off in more quickly solving bugs. However, prior to AI, building specialized tools (or even trying to find and learn existing ones) introduced a threshold.

I did exactly what you stated:

> “Without AI support, I would have just muddled through with my existing tools, lacking the time or focus to build a debug UI.“

I once took a greater initiative to make my debugging more manageable instead of struggling with the limitations of existing default tools.

In my case PHP/DB/AJAX interaction opened for hard to trace bugs; the initial challenge was to first target the right level for diagnostics. This was pre-AI, and I wrote my own diagnostics tool. It worked. Unfortunately the need wasn't in proportion to the effort I spent building the tool as my project ceased to be relevant.

Now my environment is Node JS and database (backend), and JS (front-end) as well as the server infra. I had AI create node js server accessible by websocket, unifying diagnostics from all layers. Then a simple web UI with coloring and ability to filter by source etc. Then layer-specific tools to allow layers to send diagnostics. Even my local Nvim diagnostics are sent there.

This was a breeze to put together and allows me to remain focus on my main goal. A bonus part is I actually do learn along the way, as the iterative AI process sparks curiosity about the system. Often I find myself in joyous exploration with the AI.

To me as the viewer, AI images sometimes pass for real ones, because at a glance they successfully convey a concept. A slight sense of something being off prompts looking a bit deeper and it quickly turns into something akin to a "Spot the difference" game. Spotting one error leads to a chain reaction of finding more errors. Whatever art 'is', from a philosophical standpoint, I must assume it is more than just a medium to convey a concept. At the realization of it being generated, it sort of turns into 'un-art'. Whatever concept is conveyed by an AI image also inherently conveys the concept of "generated".