You can choose to believe whatever you want or redefine any terms that you want.
I'd just say that I think it's wise to reevaluate how important anecdotal evidence and gut instincts are when you know you live in a house of liars.
4,547 karma · joined October 23, 2019
I'd just say that I think it's wise to reevaluate how important anecdotal evidence and gut instincts are when you know you live in a house of liars.
B) As something of a "climate denier" myself (whatever the hell that label means), I'd say that the biggest problem with these discussions is people are often lumping a few different concepts into one general group and then begging you to accept that general label.
These concepts are the following:
1) Human activity impacts the Earth's temperature.
2) This impact on the Earth's temperature necessarily leads to catastrophic harm.
3) The only solution to this is measures like trying to limit human reproduction, increased government control of the economy, and only using certain fashionable energy sources like solar and wind while eschewing nuclear energy.
One can agree that concept 1 reflects reality, or concept 1 + 2 reflects reality, while having a completely different approach to concept 3.
But that syncs up with what I've observed in my own life (saw multiple brazen robberies for the first time ever over the last few years) and makes sense logically given the recent predictable economic + societal mental-health destruction we've seen.
Additionally, it fits into the most reliable indicator of what's real, namely if the corporate media is trying to convince you of something, you'd have a good chance of being right by considering the opposite to their opinion.
There is a special level in hell reserved for the media gaslighters who are trying to convince you that the things you are noticing aren't real.
I hate to be that guy, but maybe you should recheck some of your premises here because you're stating something that's really specific that might not be objectively factual.
This is a pretty complicated topic, but here's a starting point for investigation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/08/27...
> I feel like we need a simpler way to talk about whether or not it is safe for people to go outside, for how long, etc., and I feel like the current reporting regime does not accomplish that.
How is knowing a few basic weather statistics like the temperature, wind speed, precipitation, and a few others like that too confusing? I know how to look out of the window, look at the weather report, and dress myself like a big boy.
This feels more like an attempt to make idealogical propaganda than a genuine attempt to inform people.
Please correct me if my interpretation of the article is incorrect, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
For what it's worth, the report mentions maternity care, pregnancy, and delivery care.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/s0822-vs-maternity-m...
1) For what it's worth, you don't know for sure why they wanted to draw blood again. There might have been some other reason, that they possibly didn't do a good job at explaining to you. I guess there's a disconnect between doctors who might order tests, and the people who actually draw blood, leading to bad communication all-around.
2) Like with most people, I think the medical profession as a whole is bad at sensible risk-management. I'm not a doctor, but I think they get a lot of training on what to do to avoid lawsuits, and this guides a lot of their thinking more-so than common-sense and sensible care. This probably guides a lot of unnecessary tests where a doctor might think something like "Yeah they don't really need to do that test again, but their insurance will pay for it, and I can eliminate the possibility of being sued if I play things by the book."
I hope it goes without saying that I don't want anybody to be mistreated or even to feel like they're not getting proper and supportive care, but I really wonder about some of these self-reported incidents.
Some really dumb people might describe a doctor saying something like "I told you this before. You say you want a healthy baby, but you need to quit the recreational drug use and drinking while you're pregnant" as verbal abuse.
You can come up with a million scenarios like this during the course of a pregnancy where an idiot might interpret a doctor's genuinely compassionate efforts to help them as "abuse".
Since you mentioned you don't currently want to do another personal project, forget tech for a moment. You have an easy job you can do to support yourself, work on your other stuff. Here's some stuff outside of tech you might consider doing to grow as a person, find happiness, and possibly give you new ideas and perspectives.
* Spend time seeking a relationship or growing the one you currently have.
* Find your hobby, or work on something you know you already like. Maybe take some random classes or events to learn random skills (glasswork, metalworking, woodworking, sculpture, etc). Maybe you'll find something that you adore doing.
* If you're not in the physical shape and health you want, use your extra time and energy to focus on that.
* Consider further education, even if it's unrelated to tech.
* Figure out an interesting home improvement project that's realistic for you. Accomplishing something on your own gives you a great feeling.
* Use some of your extra time and energy to help others. Maybe volunteering somewhere will give you a feeling of being useful.
* Travel and/or do some fun things you wouldn't ordinarily do, hopefully with some friends.
2) Many jobs use containers, but if you get out of the high-tech bubble, you'll find plenty of lower tech companies that haven't even started looking at containers. You'll be just fine with the right company.
But to me at least, the speed is the smallest issues with airplane travel.
The bigger issue is that it's just a miserable user experience all the way around: finding and buying tickets, going through security, boarding the plane, eating and being entertained on the plane, sitting in bad chairs, unpleasant bathrooms, and then you get to the general societal increase in mental illness meaning you might have to deal with some onboard drama, etc.
I'd prefer to drive anywhere that's not over an ocean these days even if the flight was at Mach 10.
1) It might be the case that it's easier to get an interesting speaking placement that can benefit him and your company greatly if it's not viewed as corporate advertising. This might be easier if it's not directly intermingled with your company's finances and brand.
2) It seems like your co-founder is mentioning your business positively in his speeches, which shows he's still working at it. It would be bad if he wasn't trying to promote your company in his speeches in some way.
3) His financial situation might have changed. Who knows? Maybe something unplanned happened like a leaky roof happened or a family member's illness occurred. He might be trying to get a little extra income to stay afloat longer and increase his personal runway without it impacting the company.
4) Once you have a few speeches under your belt, the time commitment involved in preparing a few similar speeches is pretty minimal and unlikely to significantly impact his work. As long as he's still putting in the effort at work, this seems kind of dumb.
5) Your role in the company puts your focus on the nickels and dimes. Is it possible that you're fixating on trying to squeeze out every single penny due to your role rather than focusing on the positive bigger picture?
That said, I strongly believe that the panic felt in some corners specifically about climate change is laughably overstated compared to what its nearly imperceptible impact on peoples' lives will actually be. The current climate change predictions are as accurate as the decades worth of other failed environmental predictions I lived through.
Live Life. Find love. Make babies. Make money. Touch grass. Make art. Don't sacrifice your life to even more induced fear.
1) Do you have a significant other who is onboard with your plans and who is capable of helping fund your living expenses while you push this over the finish line? A teammate with some income would be a big value here.
2) If you own your home, are you in position to downsize and sacrifice that to ensure that the business succeeds?
3) Do you have the capability to take on a lower-paying and less stressful tech job that requires a smaller time commitment to help fund your dream? If you were a great FAANG developer, you can probably find some lower-paid, but easy tech job for that you can bang out in ~20 hours per week and spend the rest of your time on your own business. How big is your weekly financial deficit? Would a lower paid job fill that gap?
4) Do you have the capacity to shed expenses? If you have employees, that might sadly mean some layoffs.
5) Can you quickly raise some money by throwing some trendy "AI" labels on your website and trying to capitalize on the trends?
6) Have you considered raising prices? If your customers do love your service, there's a chance that they'll accept a price increase rather than seeing you go out of business.
7) Maybe a dumb question, but why are you seemingly focused on a big exit rather than building a sustainable business?
Not trying to excuse Microsoft, but there's other conceivable explanations (incompetence) here other than the obvious "Microsoft is trying to throw friction onto a competitor's business" (which remains a possibility, of course)
But it's pretty gross either way that these kinds of filtering lists would have such errors. Brave is probably ok either way, but what about a random small business that wrongly gets put on such a list? People are harmed by this level of carelessness from companies like Microsoft.
Not to defend Microsoft here, but these kinds of large-scale blacklists are almost always riddled with errors and fuckups from the rushed staff who are assigned to quickly review domains to meet their quotas.
But, for companies that are batshit anal about side-projects, they're going to make you sign some onerous contract and have management that are assholes about this kind of thing.
What happens in the event that you "hit the lottery" and some side-project becomes a big deal worth a lot of money? Somebody from your company is eventually going to find out about it: maybe from a public interview or from public records. If they put 2 + 2 together about when you built this and figure out that they can file some legal claim to it, you're in a mess of a legal situation that you don't need to be in.
Safer to put your cards on the table and make sure there's nothing in an employment agreement that puts something you really care about at risk.
The percentage of companies that are very anal about side-projects isn't substantial. They need you more than you need them and it's safer to be honest and look elsewhere for employment.
But some companies take this to an extreme.
I was working on a niche clothing brand at home in my spare time for example when I wanted to work for a gaming startup. They were giving me such a repulsively hard time about my side project even though the clothing had literally nothing conceivably close to the company's business model.
It's so stupid because companies should try and hire people that have diverse experiences and are working hard to achieve something.
Mega-corporations will probably have unique authentication and authorization requirements in the future that work in specific ways that individual password managers can't cope with.
* Are certain poor countries building and operating nuclear reactors and stuff like that by now even with no debts? To me it feels like a focus on wealth-building is needed before a society has the spare economic and technical capacity to focus on clean-energy. You're not going from extreme poverty to high-tech energy directly without a societal path there. Trying to enforce wealthy Western standards on poor and uneducated countries is stupid.
* How many of these countries would get substantial investment ever again if they could wipe their hands of this kind of debt? This isn't a small deal: Venezuela went from doing well to a basket-case partially because of taking steps to limit foreign investment and nationalizing foreign companies. You'd think the least the article could do is even mention that there are potential side effects to anything like cancelling debts.
In terms of functionality, I'd like to see a few items done for the sake of transparency and/or better content.
* I'd like to see some page of HN dedicated to showing posts and that were deleted/blocked for spamming, and one for blocked/shadow-banned domains. In 99% of cases, the moderation seems fine, but there's a weird cult of sycophantic behavior on this site that refuses to believe in even the potential for mistakes being made or for bias to occur. I just want some transparency on what is blocked so it's easier to see if any patterns exist.
* Vouching flagged posts should work differently. If you vouch for somebody in real life and they do something bad, your reputation suffers. Right now you can vouch for spam or bad posts with no penalty to you just by clicking a vouch button where you can't see who vouched for it. Users should put their money where their mouth is. A vouching should require a public comment by that user detailing why they vouch for it. If somebody vouches for viagra spam, everybody should see that.
* It should be possible to respond to blocked and flagged posts/ for some limited time period after. In the 1% of cases that a moderator makes a mistake, or a good conversation is stymied, or something else happens, you should still be able to respond to give your side of the story or just post an email address to where followup discussions can occur. Abusive accounts should still be suspended, but this gives a better possibility to rectify moderation errors.
* Quasi-nonymous posting should be possible. Obviously HN would still know who you are if there was an anonymous post button so users could still be blocked for grossly bad behavior, but it might open up the potential for more honest posts about certain topics if it didn't link to your name.
* I don't want HN to turn into a pure image board, but sometimes referring to a diagram in a science or programming discussion can be useful. Is there a solution that enhances the quality of HN possible? I'd say yes.
* It might be a good idea to list what users flag a post. If somebody is perenially being a busy-body and trying to stymie speech on a particular comment or has a hate-boner against certain things, it should be possible to see that in some way. If you're only flagging things that should be blocked like viagra spam, there's nothing to be concerned about.
If you were building popular multi-player games for instance, you were probably thinking a lot about systems to prevent players from cheating or finding exploits to win. A lot of common web-development is much the same thing.
If you force people to log in to a system very frequently, they might get lax with security and do dumb things like stick "post-it notes" to their monitors with their login info out of frustration.
This argument doesn't make sense in this context. Publicly providing which domains are blocked wouldn't give a bad actor any useful information that they can't already figure out by trying to submit their links.
The area where this kind of argument makes a little sense is in terms of complicated algorithms. For instance, there's an argument for not disclosing the exact formula that Google uses to rank sites because everybody will try and game that specific system and then the algorithm because less useful.
But simply knowing which sites are blocked doesn't reveal any info that bad actors don't know, and serves the public interest by allowing people to know if censorship or moderation mistakes are happening.
1) It should go without saying that there is nothing that prevents anybody from falsely labeling a group they don't like as "spam" even if they were not actually spamming.
2) Even if "spam" from a particular organization exists, it doesn't necessarily imply that they were the ones doing the spamming. Even in the pre-AI era it would be pretty trivial for even 1 dedicated person with too much time on their hands to try and create a bunch of fake accounts on a site and spam a particular domain in order to try and get it blocked.