moonshinefe

"to whom addiction is an intellectual exercise. Maybe they know someone that may or may not be an addict, and the chances are good, that what happens to that person won't really be life-changing to the person writing about their pet theory."

Spot on. I also got a massive armchair amateurish feel reading it. They feel very comfortable emphasizing that certain lucky addicts can seem to recover and moderate, but don't really seem to put nearly as much emphasis on addicts that might die or ruin their lives if they read that advice and think they can moderate before relapsing again. No mention in the article about %s of addicts these facts apply to, no mention of the author's name or credentials. Just a crappy article that doesn't help the situation at all really.

"If enough time passes, you can start engaging in the behavior in a healthy way once again."

Spoken like the author has never had someone close with addiction, imo. You'll notice that actual medical professionals never are like "oh just quit your massively health-ruining addiction for several years then you're good to go potentially! Happens all the time, look at these studies." It's because such advice or facts--while technically true in a % of cases--downplay how devastating the next relapse might be for the addict (often it means death, or at the very least, their life ruined). Framing these things to addicts and individuals properly given their situations is very important, but has been totally bypassed by this author "helpfully." They present the article without mentioning their intentions or target audience too, which hardly helps.

"So I dove deep into the topic and looked at what science says about it."

So what credentials if any do they have at evaluating scientific consensus on addiction? Oddly enough the article includes some sources but makes no mention of who the author is from what I can see. Is this some high schooler's opinion after Googling around for an evening? We can't be sure.

"This has some merit, for example, when it comes to alcohol - you can go from being addicted to alcohol, to having a social drink once a week." "However, that doesn’t mean you need to avoid the behavior forever."

This author needs to like stop repeatedly emphasizing this stuff and muddying the waters--it HIGHLY depends. Again, this is spoken like someone who has never seen someone kill themselves young after that "one last relapse" because they thought they could control it finally. So this article comes off very poorly and I'm disappointed it got upvoted to be honest. Like, the lucky few addicts who recover and can moderate (& their loved ones) probably won't need this article. To the rest of the addicts and people who may be giving them advice, it seems to be a pretty irresponsible article to me.

Thanks for your perspective I didn't actually realize that dynamic was at play (at an organizational level, anyway, I'm well aware individuals game # of contributions).

These organizations pushing trivial/garbage patches and wasting maintainers' time absolutely have to be called out by the community as unacceptable, so I'm glad to see the post. This is a massive waste of time, time which open source contributors/maintainers often are already short on.

Seeing the >$300mil donation bar for that site always makes my jaw drop. It's incredible that people wasted so much money on a scam / vaporware that repeatedly over promised and changed the rules to weasel out of releasing or giving refunds. Seriously, give it a read on wikipedia sometime.

It's incredible this wasn't labeled a scam and shut down. Warm fuzzy intangibles like "community" and "the idea of a game" aside, imagine what good in the world that $$$ could've done otherwise.

I'm a little older but not by a lot, and was in a similar situation where I was in my early 30s where I felt my window for getting things done in life was closing and I didn't have a relationship and felt socially isolated in general (for different reasons since it wasn't covid 19 at the time, but still). Things were looking incredibly bleak for me.

But things can change awfully fast even if it seems hopeless, don't give up. The potentially partners you'll meet at this age tend to be more mature on average (generalizing of course!), and I think have a much more healthy perspective on life than the people I often met dating in my 20s. Keep in mind that dating is a numbers game, and like any numbers game, you increase your chances of success the more you play. You need to meet as many people as possible and have fewer expectations--the worse that happens is it doesn't work out and you move on. The hardest part is getting over the fear of rejection, but it can be done, even for the shy.

If it's more the isolation in general that's getting to you rather than no partner, I think if you look around you'll find clubs or groups you can hang around potentially--again you need to get yourself out of your comfort zone and just go join those things. If you're into gaming, feel free to message me (or chat about IT stuff or whatnot--Moonshine#3246 is my Discord).

Covid has been really hard on a lot of people for various reasons, but you're definitely not alone and I'm sure there are plenty of people also looking for more social interaction right now. Just need to find 'em.

"Hyper colors" to "hack my brain"? And it was like 14 paragraphs in until they actually started talking about anything technical. Always regret clicking Wired articles nowadays, they're literally just making up terms now for click bait purposes.

what's the point of the link exactly?

In my experience the sort of people who would play the racism/sexism card if it wasn't the case also tend to be the people who loudly virtue signal and shame others on social media about those topics all the time, and even announce it in their profile/blurb next to their avatars. I think as long as you do a quick google search on someone and test their character in the interview, it shouldn't be as risky as you're worried about.

I don't think the hiring all white guys scenario as a workaround as you described is very realistic. If people are actually doing that, they're missing out on the full talent pool certainly.

Did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity? Think about it.

And how do you know some nefarious hacker didn't mess with your far easier to mess with unencrypted stream?

So he actually was citing Mbps? That's impressive if at his age he's aware of that sort of thing. I was also just thinking that it might be easy to balk at $10k for such a thing to most people, but if I were 90 and the internet was my main source of entertainment / line to the outside world, it might be worth it to me to pay that. Good for him.

There wasn't a problem of the information not being there, there was a problem of 30-40% of the country believing angry demagogues over experts, and said demagogues strong arming the scientific community with political and social power. Even the most basic precautions like wearing a mask were politicized while the scientists practically begged for people to wear them. They left the WHO and refused to enter the vaccine pool. How do you fight that? Blame science? It's ridiculous and anyone claiming it's primarily science's fault I seriously question their good faith to debate here.

I was here the entire crisis (and I'm not a US citizen btw) and had easy access to the same advice Canadians, Europeans, and whoever else in the West got as well. The information was here, but the political leaders often downplayed it or simply refused to follow it. What did we get? The numbers don't lie, and take a look at the results of the current political climate and the death count. This wasn't a "good way to go" being overly skeptical of scientists. Like, there are problems with science, but this is if we're being cute "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"--or if we're being less polite--so incredibly stupid it's largely contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

So what main issues are you talking about that were "bullshit" advice from scientists in general exactly? You make a lot of super vague arguments with no specifics, and while it's nice to agree with children's fables like the boy who cried wolf, unless we agree on facts that happened, it's kind of a rhetorical argument with no real bearing in reality.

Also, I've got to say, "cancelling" anyone who's ever wrong from being an "expert" in the public sphere sounds like a really poor idea. Everyone is wrong sometimes and that's a crazy standard which would have tons of its own perverse incentives, probably even worse than the ones scientific journals and the like have now. Do you want scientists on the record terrified of saying anything besides the most vague and unfalsifiable statements? It's an untenable situation if you bring it to its logical conclusion. I do agree with you that there ought to be more consequences for scientists willingly spreading bad science though, beyond what there is now--but the solution won't be simple.

Given the vagueness of your post I'm not sure why you have the perspective that scientists produced a "non-stop wave of bullshit". From my perspective, I saw a bunch of demagogues and populists cynically manipulating a major demographic for personal gain while sidelining and ignoring the broader scientific advice and recommendations in the country the entire time, while over 350000 people died.

Wow, thanks for pointing out that review, I really needed a laugh this morning.

"This fictional dystopian future isn't politically correct!"

Might just be easier to use sftp then depending what options you need. You can ls and get/put files from a command prompt like interface and it uses the ssh protocol as well.

Where exactly are you reading these claims (particularly the last few)?

That analogy doesn't even make sense.

Also, nobody is arguing that people are "being forced" to use google services, feel free to quote a single person here that said that.

I mean, I don't condone what the youtuber did, but I'm not sure who the author is trying to kid here.

"I don't think he's a bad person and don't want to shame him.

> Literally writes an essay on his very public blog shaming the guy and showing his username/channel repeatedly

Can only speak for Steam's streaming here, but your mileage will probably vary. Your system needs to be fairly beefy (you will get a bit of a performance hit from streaming games). I run a geforce 1060 and it'll stream any new games at 1080p / 60fps but I'd go beefier for 2K/4K streaming. I'm still on a dumb 1080p TV so that'll be more important if your TV is >1080p.

Biggest obstacle here was the wifi in this house is unreliable. We tried getting a wifi extender and even a new wireless router but we kept getting latency issues. We opted to get a powerline adapter for a stable connection. MOCA is also worth looking into if connectivity is a problem.

And finally, running to the other room to start games. Again, this is steam, but I'm guessing shield has the same limitation: if your system isn't logged in or the screen is locked, you will probably have problems starting games remotely in those cases. You'll want to setup remote desktop almost for sure (you can VNC or there's a way to logout of RDP too without locking the screen automatically). I also have a Wake on LAN shortcut setup to wake the PC up remotely.

Finally, sometimes games won't pipe audio remotely because they don't switch to the "virtual streaming audio device" these apps use properly. As far as I can tell this is on a game-by-game basis and depends how they coded it, but for that I have a pretty ridiculous work around (I remotely start a command line tool via openssh to force the audio device to "steam streaming speakers" then restart the game after that). The games with these problems seem pretty rare though, I'd say maybe 5% of the games I've tried.

Overall it's awesome and I glad I spent a day or two figuring it out. I don't get noticeable lag and I can stream pretty much any game to my living room on the TV now. Also got a "Couchmaster" for a kb/mouse setup. I can also emulate things like Wii U games and stream them remotely to the TV like having an actual system.

Hope this helps.

It's not an extremely well known phenomenon at all. Asserting things while being overly emotional and aggressive isn't evidence.

So: Citation needed.

It is unfortunate. I remember the earlier days of the internet when regulation wasn't brought up like this constantly.

I think the unfortunate reality is whenever there's money involved, certain players will win over and time and become gigantic and by the very nature of their being at the top, they are unethical. Naturally, the less ethical and more ruthless money makers win in the market if all other things are considered equal to their competitors.

You're correct in that it is focused on making the user's brain feel good. I think a more accurate comparison, however, would be casino gambling. The slot machines ding at you and flash lights and make your brain release the dopamine. Facebook has the users on a similar bent via notification graphics and sounds, feeds, and various other things. It's the same idea though, and it is legitimately addictive (I've seen many family members get taken in by it to the point where they get anxiety if they can't constantly check their notifications or whatever).

I have to say I agree here. Notepad++ if it provides hashes for the downloaded EXEs is completely in the right for not wanting to pay middle men for fancy "this is OK" screen on installation. That seems ridiculous and greedy.

I've noticed an exponential increase in NYTimes articles being massively upvoted here lately with such garbage articles as this, "A New Luxury Retreat Caters to Elderly Workers in Tech (Ages 30 and Up)" and "NSA has ended phone monitoring based on an anonymous aide."

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like garbage.

I was wondering this as well, as I haven't been following things for a few months. But indeed he's back maintaining the kernel and seems far more civil than previously.

Not sure why this is being down voted, it rings true to me. I happen to live in an area where the cost of living has skyrocketed and the cost of living is completely unaffordable for a single parent who wants anything other than a life of being poor. His experience may be valid, even if others live in more affordable regions.

You essentially have to be in the top 1% in some areas to even afford a house and be able to raise a family by yourself. And yes, I guess we could all move away from our family and friends, but not everyone can even afford it or wants to do that for various reasons.

I like them for the smell and tactile sensation of it, and after spending hours upon hours in front of a monitor essentially every day, it's nice to unplug for a little while before bed.

I do have to say brand new books are pretty expensive though, but used books can be gotten for very cheap (and I actually like that older book smell). Or alternatively, free at the library if you have the time/inclination to go.

Uhh, I grew up playing the game in public school in the 90s and certainly never considered myself identified by that particular game or felt connected with anyone because they happened to play a game in that series too. That's just weird. There were hundreds of games at the time.

I actually have to hand it to you if that's true. You waited it out for like 25+ years, that's some impressive dedication. The "I told you so" attitude doesn't come off as pleasant though.

For some people money isn't that important or the end all of everything. So we get articles like this with "shocking" behaviors of people who "could be rich but don't do X." It's an interesting commentary on our society.