lostphilosopher

> "Research using the UCLA Loneliness Scale and Meaning in Life Questionnaire has shown that more loneliness is associated with less meaning. This makes sense, given our deeply rooted need for belonging. By volunteering for social causes that are important to us, we can gain a sense of purpose, which in turn may shield us from negative health outcomes. For example, purpose in life has been linked to a reduced likelihood of stroke and greater psychological well-being."

You didn't see a connection between people suffering from a lack of meaning and purpose and the decline of an institution that basically specializes in that? Note that no one (here) is saying "church provides the correct meaning/purpose" or even "church provides a good meaning or purpose." Just that churches are out there specifically and directly trying to provide meaning and purpose.

Another angle is that churches often engage in volunteer work. Much more so than your average softball team or book club. If the secret sauce of preventing loneliness is the purpose/meaning/"je n'ais se quoi" of volunteering specifically - churches are/were major players in that space. Even if that connection was coincidental there's a possible link between the decline of church engagement and the rise of loneliness.

Anyway, I'm not the OP. Maybe they thought they were typing in another window and it ended up here, but these are some the connections I was thinking about / reasons I upvoted.

Personal recommendation: Stardew Valley

Paid app, no microtransactions or ads.

Similar to the original Harvest Moon games.

Doing this requires spending money now. You can get away with funding pensions with IOUs much longer than you can do it with a salary or 401k. Further the benefits of solving this kick in long after you are out of office, assuming no one breaks your system before then.

AKA "The Peltzman Effect" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Peltzman_eff...

Was too busy to cite sources at the time, but for posterity:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/the-dangers-of-sa... https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/07/30/concu... https://sports.cbslocal.com/2015/07/03/lemco-why-football-ne...

Similar to a phenomenon in sports - more and better protective gear leading to more aggressive play leading to more injuries instead of the expected less.

There's also the "number of purchases * purchase price" equation which means you can make more money by reducing price if it means (enough) more people by the product, or buy more of them.

I'd recommend statistics specifically. Comes up everywhere and it's easy to be wrong about if you don't dig into it.

"It's a whole different game when you have to switch from man on man coverage to zone defense."

Both your statement and the GP's ring true to me.

Here's how I'd parse it - Automation does indeed free up time for by choice activities, but it also removes motivation to do things that are both hard to do and good to do. Obvious example: cars have made tons of things possible that weren't possible before, but if I didn't have a car or live in a society built around them I'd probably get a lot more exercise.

The more automation we have the fewer things we're forced to do and there are drawbacks that come with that. Others have brought up that the experience of having done any hard thing may have intrinsic benefits, but fewer of us have had that experience. Not an argument against automation, just acknowledging the cons.

I grew up US rural and this checks out with me. I'm sure not every rural community had this era, but I bet a large number did.

(I highly doubt it's still like this.)

For people from India or China, this is bad, agreed.

But if the US didn't limit by country how would people from less populous countries be able get green cards? Given the exponential size differences in play I'd expect many years to have 0 immigrants from <insert small country here> and that doesn't seem right either.

This isn't an argument for the current system. I'm just not sure what a system would look like that doesn't unfairly disadvantage someone.

In a world of no tests, a handful of high level tests on "critical path" functionality can make a huge difference. They can also demonstrate visible wins to unconvinced stakeholders.

I don't know the OP's world, but I can vouch for starting with high level tests being a good strategy in some cases.

Why is the focus always on "closing the border" or other actions taken on the immigrants themselves and not on cracking down - hard - on the companies that illegally employee and abuse them?

Trying to stop or even slow down immigration without addressing the incentives that drive them to leave home and come to the US seems like a doomed and inefficient game of whack a mole...

If you wrote more about the relationship between the language and the culture from a non-native perspective - I'd read it.

This is a news story about a specific event. This specific event happened in China, to a Chinese citizen. The whole story is full of specifics - dates, amounts of money, company names, individual names, repository names, direct quotes, etc. These details are the story, the story does not exist with out them. Robbed of those details the article would convey nothing that people want to know. These details also help us relate to the story.

Human elected leader of country.

Weather occurring in geographic region.

Team lost game. Team won game. There will be more games.

Human incarcerated after conviction of crime.

HN "post" - Because that's the HN guideline.

> "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Register "post" - The Register is not a Chinese publication. The nation/legal system involved can't be assumed from the source, and is a vital part of the story since it's about a legal matter.

> "the Shenzhen Municipal People's Procuratorate – the local version of the Crown Prosecution Service – successfully prosecuted the developer in early April, before the Shenzhen District Court."

Had The Register _not_ included "Chinese" it could have been accused of "click baiting" since the Register's predominantly non Chinese[1] readership might have thought this was about laws that applied to them and clicked through.

Had the source been a Chinese publication writing about a American developer jailed, I'd imagine they would use "American dev jailed..." for exactly the same reasons.

1. "The Register is a leading global online tech publication, with more than nine million monthly unique browsers worldwide. The core audiences are the UK and US, accounting for more than six million. The bulk of the remaining readership are located in Canada, Australia and northern Europe." - https://www.theregister.co.uk/Profile/about_the_register/

I see this as a reflection of the candidates ability to find and listen to experts. I don't expect a candidate to understand how to do tech "right" - I'm in the industry and still get half of it wrong! However, when you're running a multi million dollar campaign you can afford to bring in experts to set this stuff up and audit your practices. In fact, I assume these candidates are already doing this and that if they are still not following some basic best practices it's because they are actively ignoring the experts they brought on to help them. That's what worries me. If they can't find or listen to these people now, what makes me think they'll be able to in office? (Related: "The internet is not a big truck...")

My wife and I have different phones and have consistently found the map experience better on mine. When we travel I drive and she uses my phone to navigate...

Are people not writing in physical diaries to prevent future breeches of privacy? (Odd to think of Facebook etc. like that.) Or are people doing it out of convenience / least resistance? If so, are they cognizant of what this means for the longevity of the data? I'm not sure the future impact is an intentional choice...

Or alternatively:

> “Are you going to tell me,” said Arthur, “that I shouldn’t have the green salad?”

> “Well,” said the animal, “I know many vegetables that are clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.”

- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

(Kidding mostly...)

Ok, I'll say it - bicyclists tend to annoy me. Obviously, I don't shout at them, or try to hit them, or make them think I'm trying to hit them. That's nuts. That seems like a problem separate for bike/car relations. I doubt someone who behaves that way in a car gets out of it and suddenly becomes a calm and reasonable person.

But here's my assessment of why bikes annoy me. Not argument that they should, just some introspection.

* They make me nervous. Cars are easy to see, have lots of momentum to overcome, and generally exist on a predictable well defined plane. Bikes are different. They can enter the car plane from places I don't expect and didn't even realize existed. They can make 90 degree turns on a dime (relative to my sedan) and can stop in inches. They don't generally obey traffic lights, stop signs, one ways, or any of the other rules that lend predictability to car behavior. They don't have brake lights or signals. And in a complex driving environment, they're tiny and often poorly lit. They also have no protection. Slow moving car crashes aka "fender benders" are expensive and annoying, but rarely dangerous. Similar accidents involving a bike can end lives. Having a bike near me makes me worried I'm going to hit it. I don't want to live with that so I give it huge space and pay it lots of attention. If I could drive on roads that didn't have bikes I'd prefer it.

* Civic disagreement. The arguments in favor of making roads more bike friendly are generally: more healthy, more space efficient, more environmentally friendly. I agree on healthy and environmentally friendly. Though, it does seem odd when someone tells me biking is super healthy and super dangerous in the same sentence, but I cede the point. Space efficient? Yes and no. It is more space efficient for people whose options are bike vs car to ride a bike, but there's tons of people that doesn't apply to - people who live far away, people who need to haul things, people who have health issues, people who are too young etc. Also, lots of people don't want to bike in heat, rain, snow, etc. Also, not everyone has a place to change and shower when they get to work. The shower issue and the distance issue disproportionately impact people who are less well off. I get that biking can be part of the solution, but man does it get over hyped.

* Guilt/jealousy. I really enjoy biking! If I'm in my car and you're on your bike - I'm pretty sure you're having more fun than I am, and that makes me jealous. Then I start asking myself why I'm not biking, and sometimes the answer makes me feel guilty. Neither of those emotions often get followed up with - let's arrange it so I can experience more of this.

Three additional reasons:

We don't necessarily know what's "important" in advance.

Archiving this content can be a nice public service for people who put content on the internet, don't do a good enough job preserving it themselves, and then want to access it later. I've heard "check the wayback machine" as a solution on HN for people whose blog got taken down unexpectedly from some provider and they didn't have a back up solution.

Perhaps the same as the first reason, but some of this content can turn out to be useful as evidence. It's not uncommon for public figures to take down unflattering messages they posted on social media platforms and then deny having ever made them.

tl;dr: I'm betting: "And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year... sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So ... you call me evil. But unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."

Context:

>Jack Valentine: Are you crazy? Or just plain delusional? I don't think you fully appreciate the seriousness of your situation! You are gonna spend the next ten years of your life going from a cell to a courtroom before you even start serving your time!

> Yuri Orlov: [Quietly] My family has disowned me. My wife and son have left me. And my brother's dead. I can assure you I appreciate the seriousness of my situation. But I promise you- I won't spend a single second in a courtroom.

> Jack Valentine: [Scoffs] You are delusional.

> Yuri Orlov: I like you, Jack. [Considers] Well, maybe not, but- I understand you. Let me tell you what's gonna happen. This way you can prepare yourself. Okay. Soon there's gonna be a knock on that door and you will be called outside. In the hall there will be a man who outranks you. First, he'll compliment you on the fine job you've done, that you're making the world a safer place, that you're to receive a commendation and a promotion. And then he's going to tell you that I am to be released. You're going to protest... you'll probably threaten to resign. But in the end, I will be released. The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of those men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year... sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So ... you call me evil. But unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil.

[Valentine now looks very grim, realizing Orlov is right. There is a knock at the door just as Yuri promised.]

> Jack Valentine: [Getting up] I would tell you to go to Hell, but I think you're already there.

Ok, maybe you can help settle this for me. I know that phrasing appears in EWD1175, but years ago I came across this[1] which claims it was originally a handwritten annotation to EWD498. So that's how I've always cited it (I prefer Dikstra's phrasing to Hoare's.)

Some searching today found a wikiquote page[2] which led me here[3] also claiming an EWD498 handwritten annotation as the source.

Do you know definitively whether the annotation appears in EWD498?

(I thought at one time I actually found an image with the handwritten annotation, but I can't find it at the moment... Maybe I dreamed that...)

1. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/ewd498.html 2. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Edsger_W._Dijkstra 3. http://web.archive.org/web/200011201643/http://www.cbi.umn.e...

"Simplicity is a necessary precondition for reliability." - Edsger W. Dijkstra (handwritten annotation to EWD498)

Pocket is what I use for this: https://getpocket.com/

(Unaffiliated, just a user.)

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/808/

"It was octarine, the colour of magic. It was alive and glowing and vibrant and it was the undisputed pigment of the imagination, because wherever it appeared it was a sign that mere matter was a servant of the powers of the magical mind. It was enchantment itself. But Rincewind always thought it looked a sort of greenish-purple." - Terry Pratchett, _The Color of Magic_

That only makes sense to me if there are other fixed price options and this option is for, "if your usage falls well outside of our existing options we can tailor an arrangement."

If it's the only option presented? Nope.

There's a lot of good stuff here. But there seems to be a thread of "correct political opinions are purely subjective." This is sometimes true I suspect, but there are two cases where it isn't:

Some "opinions" are actually just awareness of or acceptance of objective fact. To stick with the theme: Obama either gave or did not give $x to y charity in year z. Two people can hold differing subjective opinions, but one is objectively wrong.

The other case is when a political "opinion" seems subjective but is really based on a set of objective facts. This is where debate in the current climate goes to hell. I've found that people I disagree with often hold rational positions based on the "facts" they believe to be true. I just don't think any of their facts are accurate. One of us in that case is objectively correct, but resolving that takes an authority we both believe to be canon. That doesn't exist.