mvncleaninst

archived; https://archive.ph/k9Z2a

> By working on environmental issues

When we talk about making the world better off, this is not the only area where it can be done. A lot of the replies here take it in this direction, but this is only one way among many

For me personally, I care more about things like digital privacy and anonymity than I do about the environment. Not that I don't care about the environment, just that the thing that initially made me study CS was reading Snowden's autobiography

I think that as long as governments (e.g. the UK) are trying to limit/ban encryption, I'm going to prioritize digital privacy over other things like the environment

> Though I'd probably trust the tablet to be real wasabi about as much as I'd trust restaurant wasabi to be real. Even if the tablets are fake, folks will just forget why they were taking it in the first place.

You can sometimes find the real stuff (in root form) in Japanese grocery stores, it's just kind of expensive

> the practical day-to-day rules to live by gives people answers to these sorts of philosophical questions. This saves them the trouble, anxiety, and self-doubt that come from trying to work out the "best" answer for themselves.

That's part of culture, not necessarily religion. Those answers come from just watching how people go about life and learning from them. Metaphysical beliefs are not needed for day to day life and are just vestigial at this point

Idk why but MKBHD's videos seem really soulless to me, just something about them

first off sorry if my initial response reads brusque, I've been burnt by the self help stuff and learned the hard way to be skeptical of it, didn't think that the skepticism would lead to this much argument...

> There is a lot you can change by undoing subconscious self-sabotage patterns and undertaking “letting go” practices,

What do you mean by this, like buddhism or something like it? Is there some kind of literature on this?

> I've gone to therapy with the CBT method and it's total garbage meant to keep you meek and accepting of the bullshit people pile on you in life.

Really? I've never done it but have heard some negative stuff, like what do they teach you?

I'm not saying that trauma isn't real, I'm saying that it doesn't have to impact your prospects in life. You don't have to let it define you. There's a capacity to sidestep it

Here's a personal example: having abusive family members tell me I won't be successful or independent, being hurt by it but knowing in the back of my head that I would get out of there. It's hope

And I get it: not all trauma is equal here, but if I have to choose one extreme I'd prefer the one that gives people some shred of agency

Yeah and I don't regret it either

You're taking the word out of context and using a different definition of it

How do people here even make time for dating in the first place? At least for me atm, doing part time graduate school, job, and interview prep, I feel so burned out after it that I don't want to do anything

And I'm probably not even in as deep as some people here, some of this computer stuff is so ridiculously time consuming. I'm not even working on anything remotely hard, but still: how the hell do you make time? Without sacrificing your own projects?

It's something I've been thinking about for a while now. How do all of the people maintaining all of this hard, important shit get to where they are and still manage to have some semblance of a life? Not only just maintaining the stuff, but learning all of the background necessary to get there

> Whereas if you're not in the top tier of "chosen" people and experience a few painful rejections and setbacks, you're made to feel that's just what you deserve and what you're stuck with, and there's not much you can do to improve your lot.

You aren't "made to feel anything", it's a two way street. You have someone who says something negative, and you have the choice to listen to it or disregard it. That's a choice

> I think a lot about how the world would be better if more people were encouraged and empowered to go on long-term journeys of deep personal growth

I think if you're motivated enough to do this, you're already motivated enough to go out and get the career success or love life or whatever you're after. Frankly doing that is probably simpler and more straightforward than "self discovery" or whatever. There's a Carlin bit for this https://youtube.com/watch?v=4s3bJYHQXYg

This guy's videos go so in depth, I get them impression that decades from now people will reference them to get a picture of what today's cars were like

Do you have the names of documentaries handy by chance?

I don't think parent was trying to downplay solitary confinement, was just providing an analogous phenomenon

> Mostly from the perspective of the patient.

It isn't just this, there's also a public health component to it. If it was solely this, then NPD wouldn't be considered a disorder

I'd take a different stance here: the public health component is the point of it. Dysfunction is framed from the perspective of the public good. This is why NPD is considered pathological. The very fact that NPD is even a thing indicates this

Also if you read these prior two paragraphs over, you can substitute the word "morality" in the place of "public health", since bad behavior is gradually becoming synonymous with pathology

I think "slacking" is a very politically loaded word. For example, it has a strong connotation with dodging the draft [0]

Doing less on the clock and doing less in FOSS/personal learning are two separate categories. You can do less on the job without inhibiting growth by using that energy for personal work

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

Hell no, I personally would never stay after giving an ultimatum like that. If the backup offer is more, I'd just take it and leave. If it's the same, I'd leave if management is toxic. If it's less, I'd still leave if management is toxic but probably burn a few bridges along the way :)

> This stuff is incredibly demoralizing.

> Loyal, good workers get exploited by these parasitic people because they care about the company, they care about their good coworkers, and they take pride in making good products. Obviously this stuff is all easily exploitable by the people I'm describing.

Imo if you frame things like "the bizbros are the problem", you're defining it in a way where the solution falls outside of your control. Ofc the bizbros are the problem, but there isn't much we can do about them. That sort of defines them, right? They can be stupid, because no one is requiring them to be smart. They aren't required to make any sense. So they don't. The right to be stupid cannot be understated

Personally, if the stuff is demoralizing, I let myself get demoralized! If the culture is fucked, why should I care? Let it crash.

But a broader point here: the bizbros and their behavior, it isn't just limited to the corporate sphere. That type of personality is a sign of rot

Have you ever considered that it isn't them, it's just your own perspective and boundaries?

> “I pulled both emergency shut off handles because I thought I was dreaming and I just wanna wake up,” he allegedly told officers.

Just think, if there were fewer people shilling psychedelics on the internet this likely would've never happened

> with strict confidentiality so they can be open without jeopardizing their career.

I'd go a step farther, make it anonymous by design so that real name and identity are never disclosed. That way it builds the confidentiality into the system instead of just giving the illusion of it

but... this is probably never going to happen (at least at scale), it isn't profitable enough

but a good historical analogy would be those confession booths in churches. except, instead of going to the local one the confessor goes to one that's far away enough

> If you predictably do that then the pilots won't speak truthfully in therapy in the first place.

Why do you think anonymous therapy isn't a thing? There has to be a reason, I wonder what it is...

Oh wow, Aquinas opining about something he himself had never experienced. I'm sure this has some merit. Let's spend a couple hundred years trying to figure out what he meant, I'm sure we'll get somewhere

> People will just move to avoid the tax. THere are plenty of countries worth living in that don't have a wealth tax. France found out the hard way.

And why are we assuming here that this is a bad thing? If the tax disproportionately affects the 1% and the 1% leaves, was anything of value lost? Or better yet, did we lose something of negative value?

Here's an alternative take: if the 1% leaves it would be analogous to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_of_the_Gerasene_demon...

These types of articles are doing the opposite of what they're trying to do. How exactly is framing marriage in purely economic terms supposed to encourage marriage? How is reducing people down to an income stream, a college diploma, genitalia, etc going to encourage marriage?

Take this for example:

> not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability.

It's really disgusting what they're doing here. They don't talk about whether you love the other person, or whether you complement each other... no, they talk about economics. They talk about "what's good for me and my bank account"

The tone of this article: it reads like it was written by a sociopath. You ask the author "why do people get married" and hear this stupid shit about economics and "benefits to society", nothing about love or trust or any of the actual reasons. People can't just get along for some reason, economics has to insert itself into everything and liquidate whatever trust and spontaneity it can find

> A more equitable solution than socialized childcare that recognizes that homemaker is a valuable job

It isn't a valuable job, economically speaking. It's an anachronism and essentially a luxury for couples where one parent makes enough to support the entire household. Not only this, but it essentially puts all of the pressure on the working parent to economically hold up the household

The cases where it economically makes sense are practically nonexistent in 2023

> By all metrics it's cheaper to be married. Better tax benefits, lower housing and insurance costs when you bundle, etc.

yeah maybe if you do prenup it is

> I think what is really happening is that as society advances, lots of rules, regulations and processes just build up and up over time, and this complexity eventually becomes self-sustaining, even if it greatly diverges from the original intent of the original rules.

This is one theory, I think a slightly different explanation could be that most corporations are too large for the people making decisions regarding things like layoffs to be able to have a clear picture of what each employee is doing

Also like a sibling comment said, there are also conflicting incentives like middle management engaging in empire building. Because of this, there isn't any vertical enforcement or clarity

Really interesting how much better complexity scales in software than it does in business