azhu

If that's your experience then that's your experience. Mine is different. I validate your experience, and see it as true. I do the same for my own.

It appears that you're defining masculinity in and of itself as toxic. Masculine and feminine function as yin and yang, as dualistic complements. The masculine is simply structure, force, or closure. The feminine is flow, softness, and openness. Each human moves with a balance of both.

What's toxic is when the masculine is out of balance with the feminine. When structure, force, and closure crowd things out because there is not enough flow, softness, and openness. Simply making a decision and acting on it is not in and of itself toxic. It's the inability to adjust later that is toxic.

> The masculine gender role is extremely narrow, and if you deviate much from it, society will punish you.

> As a man seeking a female partner, if I want to be a homemaker who teaches belly dance part time, I'm going to be in for a really hard time, no matter how much personal agency I embrace.

If you say so, it will be so. If you write this code, you should not be surprised when running it achieves the programmed result. Whether you believe me or not, your statements are false. I spent time thinking this way, I suffered immensely, I put in deep effort to explore a larger perspective, and I am now greatly enjoying how incomplete was the field I saw before.

Women don't all want a provider. The trust of many has been damaged beyond that. They provide for themselves now (lots of men actually say we want that). What else can a man offer? Emotional support. The ability to make her feel like a fucking goddess. Being a homemaking belly dancer more aligns with that than doesn't.

You are right that women must participate too. They already are. It's men's attitudes that need to catch up.

I feel you bro. I've felt that same way and I have empathy. You have solid points and a valid perspective. You could also really use an attitude adjustment.

We're here as a society because of mishandled social responsibility. Women have only started to take up their own personal care because they can't rely on established conventions any more.

We as individuals likely have not done much, if anything, to contribute to this social circumstance. Just like women as individuals have not done much, if anything, to contribute to it. It is none of our faults. Yet they are taking personal responsibility for their wellbeing in this situation anyways. They are "manning up".

Men on the other hand... are we just sitting around crying with our thumbs up our asses? Yes. Yes we are. That shit is weak. That perspective on the situation is what's hard to empathize with, not the situation itself. Change your attitude, take personal responsibility, and bask as love and empathy showers onto you.

We can do better than looking to others to solve our problems for us. It just takes seeing an example of how. They are in short order, but they exist if you dig hard enough. I encourage any men who resonate with this to dig deeper. There is sweet sweet fruit to be had if you do. And tons of pussy.

To become conscious of all things a person must look for that which they are unconscious of rather than focusing purely on that which they are already conscious of. Most people prefer to see themselves as competent, but to be a master one must always see oneself as a beginner.

+1. Personal roots always lead to the environment around a person. How someone responds plays a role in the result, but that absolutely should not obscure the fact that the circumstances are an enormous factor.

It's not just you. I feel this way too. My personal values don't align with those of the industry. Plenty of people feel this way. Lots of them make a career change.

Find what motivates you in life and build your life around that. Capitalistic industry is fundamentally about profit. If not monetary then power and prestige.

The general mood matches yours. Lots of people are feeling apathy. Prioritizing of profit over people creates dehumanizing social institutions and drives mental health issues. It's really simple and obvious.

People who are too caught up in the glitter of shiny coins can't see the writing on the wall. Either we as a whole are headed for a big change or those who feel that way are headed for a big change in how they relate to the overall whole. Likely both.

Heavily agreed. Our psychologies are becoming unrooted from our bodies' physical needs. Years of evolving towards the mental stimulation we seek these days is detaching us from our bodily sensations, and often we can't feel the bodily consequences of our choices until a complex chronic health problem arises. We're burning ourselves out on a global scale.

It is indeed a difficult balance to strike between keeping things cohesive and keeping them from becoming an echo chamber.

There is something to be said for allowing "flamebait". What's flame to one may be a welcome splash of water for another. Matter of fact, it might be that people who espouse so much "flame" may have legitimate issues fueling that flame.

There is absolutely also something to be said for wrangling conversation so as to keep it constructive. It's the balance of the two that achieves a community that remains healthy over time and not just healthy according to the popular values of any given time.

You have adapted your emotional processing towards the belief that work/financial success supersedes all else. This belief, and the set of beliefs underneath it, are reasonable, though incomplete. Being completely adapted to an incomplete set of beliefs is what leads to emotional/existential distress. Just add to your belief set and adapt yourself to a more complete set of beliefs.

The author explains it well IMO. Mentally computing an appropriate response to present to another human takes energy. The more different that human than you, the more energy. There'll be some outliers that are inordinately drained by pairing.

I agree that if someone can't talk about why they're feeling stressed by their work environment then it's a deeper issue than just a personal one. I would point to leaders whose lack of understanding of higher order truths about humans, like that humans are different and space needs to be permanently held for those differences to be surfaced and coalesced, can cause their well intended questioning to come across as personal attack, thereby incentivizing the team member to stay quiet.

Trust is the end state of solving a communication problem. But it's a systemic quality and needs to be cultivated from the system as a whole, not any one member.

Humans are fundamentally meant to interact and collaborate with other humans. Technology has obscured this by empowering us each to be resourceful alone. In the long term, we indeed do operate best collaboratively.

I haven't read this book, but I intuit that its point is that we're to awaken to the fact that all our industrial contrivance is to blame for all our misery.

This deeply clicks with me and where I'm personally at in my growth. Technology is bullshit, and it is unsatisfying. The maximal emotional return I can get from creating industrial technology is the knowledge that I'm either dominating others or helping others be dominate. That's flatly garbage in comparison to the return I get from growing an herb on my counter and using it to make tea for my friends.

It's taken me quite some time to extricate my own personal wellbeing from the meatgrinder of western industrial life. As a matter of principle now, I can't really think deeply into how the wider world would ingest such a perspective, and whether or not it's ready for it. Such fruitless contemplations were the reasons for the depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues of my twenties.

This is happening in many spheres. Some call it spiritual awakening, others call it a mental health crisis, and yet more call it The Great Reset and seem to frame it in economic terms. Economy is pure human contrivance -- "logy" should be the root we use for the term we use to describe our relationship to the system we subsume, not "nomy".

All in all I agree -- this is by far the most interesting stuff and represents a distinct segment of growth amongst the intellectual body of western industrial humanity. I'll probably catch some neg for saying this, but all of this stuff is common sense amongst indigenous communities. They naturally have the correct context to automatically hold these perspectives.

Motives can be acted upon in many modes. Also

> Marianne Bellotti

the author is a woman.

You lot have a bit to learn about leadership. It has much less to do with code than you would think. A leader of a technical squad needs enough technical knowledge to properly contextualize what their team is dealing with, but that's all. Leadership is about setting up team members such that the whole group succeeds. It's about soft skills and knowing how any action or decision will impact how people feel about the situation at hand. It's about wrangling a team such that they behave cohesively.

Agreed. At this point in 2020, this much text for this elementary of a morality problem is a waste. I was really hoping for something more earth shattering than how humans have a hard time finding the bounds between themselves and others.

Semi funny that this exchange is kinda like proof of why JS catches the hate it does.

Agreed. This is indeed how it works. Changes in company culture trends somewhat lend to the perception of newer programmers that they hold competency beyond what they do, which contributes to the overall problem of software being hard and an unstable industry.

I used to not be able to code, and now I can. By that I mean I used to not grok the purely abstract domain of encoding meaningful computation and only the concrete domain of when I type a certain sequence of keys in ${languageX} and press some other stuff, stuff happens.

Now that I better understand the abstract domain the concrete domain of programming languages translate, I am much better able to pick new tools up and understand whether or not they should be picked up.

> If 90% of your insight into social interactions comes from clickbait social media sites selecting the most egregious stories and videos from around the world, of course you're going to think "stupidity is expanding"

Agreed. Isn't this the majority of people though? And if this is in fact the majority of people, then doesn't it mean that stupidity is in fact expanding?

I don't think any of us are going to hit upon the end-all-be-all decisive proof either way, but I think there's value in considering how everyone perceiving it getting larger may be the definition of it getting larger.

Tech is bad because our hypothesis of "nature will help us adapt to our disregard for foresight" is proving false. Across the board: economic, social, manufacturing, education, environmental -- everything is giving us plenty of evidence that we are headed in the wrong direction.

All meaningful measures of human wellbeing are going down at increasing rates. We are making mistakes at a rate that outpaces our ability to learn from our mistakes and we doubling down on the strategy that got us here in order to get us out.

The line about us not knowing the future and needing to take the best guess we have and building more on it than we are confident in its correctness is illogical and clearly disordered.

> How curious to know that it's all in the brain rather than a psychological cause such as anxiety

I'm not sure this model of thinking is fully correct. In a way, it's like saying that muscle cramps are all in the muscle rather than in their lack of hydration or their being overworked.

The substance of thought, emotion, and cognition is synapses firing, neurotransmitters transmitting, and neural connections being made. Like muscles, their movements flow as a result of environmental inputs, and environmental inputs that are stronger create stronger adaptations towards them.

The article doesn't say that it's all in the brain.

My experience matches this to a tee. Engineers who take initiative and ownership are the ones most likely to know the function of the revenue generator's vital organs and how they interact in a system. Execs, product folks, designers, and people managers may understand at the level a 5th grader understands bodily anatomy, but the engineers necessarily must know it on a surgeon's level. For startups.

I will say though, that the executive layer above our heads is not to be totally dismissed. They do have vision into things that we can lack, namely people and culture stuff that has significant impact on the company's long term trajectory. Or maybe big acquisitions and whatever. But the people stuff is what generates all the perceivably asinine people management stuff because if you get rid of the average nonautonomous employee, you have no one left pretty much. Hiring good engineers is HARDDDDDDDDDDD unless you can just bury the problem with cash.

The best potential solve I can personally see still hinges on having the right people. For any unit of people at any scale doing anything, a leader who can effectively recognize who to empower within what boundaries feels like it's by far the most crucial thing. I'm not sure there's even a way to have a pilotable thing made of individuals without having a conductor. If you just build out the org in a way where it can be conducted and put good conductors in place then they will be able to tell you wtf is going on at the level you need to know about and effectively translate your intentions into implementation.

Feels like this is the why behind the whole "idk y'all figure it out" style of startup engineering nonleadership that's becoming common these days. People just flat out don't know what they're doing, and even when they know it, they obscure it for self-serving reasons. If you have a leader setting this example via doing anything but having technical field vision and directing as a respected and well liked military officer would, then you will have an engineering org that is optimized for bleeding money.

Some may consider velocity to be part of the problem's domain considerations while others may not. If you consider that part, then Next is a great choice if you are novicely advanced at frontend web.

It does come with a lot of preoptimizations that may not be necessary for the job (as the job is currently defined), but the thoughtful way they're implemented makes having them in there anyway not all that costly. The directory based build stuff that auto code splits, does SSR, and static site generation is high value with a very low learning curve. Not only does it not require a lot of load on the meat to use the bazooka of Next for an anthill of a problem, but it also doesn't really add any load on the metal. And the fact that these features do a great job of covering your ass should business demands pivot under you makes Next a rare kind of contender.

It's a bad choice if all you need is some small piece of an already-existent architecture, but if you need something as the main frontend body for a long-lived app, I've found Next to be the best thing I've ever used by a significant amount.

- Location: NYC

- Remote: yep

- Willing to relocate: yep

- Technologies: JavaScript/TypeScript (vanilla, React, Vue, Node, Next, Ionic, React Native, etc), HTML/CSS/frontend web, express, data science degree, and some other experience with Python, Django, Rails, neo4j, postgres, SQL, NoSQL, GraphQL, AWS stuff, GCP stuff, Firebase, Back4App, and other JAMStack flavored stuff

- Résumé/CV: http://adamz.hu

- Email: [email protected]

Breadth in what you think about and active attempts to connect seemingly disparate pieces of information. IMO, "abstract" refers to something that is a pattern which applies to many things. As opposed to "concrete", which refers to specifics about a specific domain.

And psychedelics tbh. There is a propensity of science that says that among other things, psychedelics improve your ability to connect what you know. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192...

Agreed. Its constituents should endeavor to change that similar to how broader society is doing so around it.

As a younger person, I agree, it is very disappointing. I would've guessed YC more prescient than to not realize there are tectonic cultural shifts heavily worth deep discussion happening.

I've noticed that sometimes, when people rise through ranks or otherwise mature in the world of business, they become disconnected from regular humanity and forget that emotions are real signals.

Events lately have encouraged me to consider the nature of narrative, and the phenomenon of how human society collectively synthesizes meaning out of data. I wonder if there is any formalized research into how computer science concepts may model this. I've also long held feelings that compsci and information theory may reveal a solid theory of everything, including conscious experience and I wonder if anyone has seriously chased up that line of curiosity.

Personally, this feels different. The Golden Age fallacy is where one person goes "hey I dislike this because it's different". This is speedily increasing amounts of young people suffering mental illness. https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/data.html#:~:text=....