youreincorrect

The linked article and the source for that data (https://news.gallup.com/poll/180911/holidays-weekends-americ...) both specify July 19.

> Certain weekend days, particularly Saturday, July 19 (63%), also ranked among the happiest for Americans in 2014.

Could be a mistake on both ends though. But June 19, 2014 was not a Saturday (it was for July 19 though) nor do I believe many businesses or localities were allowing employees a holiday on Juneteenth in 2014.

I want to know what's so special about July 19th that it made this list.

Probably not this:

> 2014 – Gunmen in Egypt's western desert province of New Valley Governorate attack a military checkpoint, killing at least 21 soldiers. Egypt reportedly declares a state of emergency on its border with Sudan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_19#1901%E2%80%93present

Edit:

For real though, this is kind of a strange article once it starts comparing 2019 and after.

> A recent gallup poll noticed a slight downturn in satisfaction with Americans’ personal life during the last 20 years.

> [graph showing a tick down in this poll on satisfaction from somewhere around mid-60s to ~50 from 2019 to 2020]

Gee, I wonder what happened from 2019 to 2020 that caused a dramatic shift in Americans' satisfaction with personal life. Hmm. Let me think...

> Notably, the amount of leisure is one area that people say could be be improved upon.

Changed from 42 up to 43 from 2019 to 2023. Personal health went down from 54 to 41, family life from 76 to 66, community as a place to live from 61 to 51.

I don't know why the article presents this data at all because it doesn't support focusing on leisure. The dramatic tick down is quite clearly people pissed off or affected by COVID-19 and government's response to it (both impacted people negatively). Given that data, leisure seems like a non-sequitur. Leisure definitely is important and has been consistently poor regardless of COVID-19, so why present this particular data? Just talk about leisure.

I'll add that one thing I think about leisure in the US is that without longer vacations, our leisure time is used in a worse way as well. A lot of peoples' leisure is filled with consuming television. It's like the junk food of leisure. Heck, if you're watching TV shows where characters are frequently angry and yelling at each other or committing murder, I'm going to guess that might actually have a more negative impact on the viewer's mental health. To each their own of course, but I find that when I listen to sad or angry music, it makes me sad or angry. It's like the Bill Burr bit on his dog's temper (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnjGyOQ7FcU). Not suggesting we need to regulate how people use their leisure, I just think this is probably another piece of the puzzle when discussing Americans and our dissatisfaction with our lives in terms of leisure.

I'm going out on a limb here and saying that these SCOTUS opinions are more transparent than, for example, the 5,000+ page bills passed by Congress that you know could have only been written by teams of lobbyists rather than actual representatives.

I agree, but with the noted caveat that pedestrians who are completely oblivious to their surroundings are usually only a danger to themselves, whereas drivers who are even somewhat oblivious to their surroundings can be far more dangerous.

When I lived in SF, I saw this constantly btw. I probably saved on guy's life who saw a walk sign turn on at an intersection, proceeded to look at his phone, and stepped into the intersection. Meanwhile a car was running the red light at a fast speed (it was crossing Market somewhere up near 2nd Street), so I had to tug this guy by the back of his shirt to prevent him from getting creamed. And he actually gave me an annoyed look. This was sometime around 2015 though, so just an anecdote that doesn't have much to do with the data in the article.

> Had human level AI agents existed at the time we wrote the constitution I can assure you it would have been written different.

You can assure me of that? Really?

Edit: If you're going to downvote me, how about you instead provide an explanation of how this can be assured? Or, you know, GFY.

When people talk about Bitcoin's potential demise, they are referring to its price and perceived value, not whether it will cease to exist necessarily.

Madoff also was not ultimately caught and his scheme ended because of the accounting fraud being revealed (i.e. the fraud was not that important). That happened later. He was caught because a market downturn resulted in him being unable to acquire new victims for the Ponzi scheme, which would have otherwise perpetuated it by taking new money in and using that to pay out existing investors.

Crying about 'whataboutism' is usually a sign of a mentally-stunted person.

There are so many awful things going on in the world that you must provide a convincing reason for telling me, "Look over here... China is doing X!" If I can say, "USA also does X," or "USA does similar thing Y," then I think it's fairly clear you need a convincing argument to try and make me care about this instance of China doing it.

Same thing applies when Democrats do X or Republicans do X. It applies across the board, but this is with the caveat that I mostly do not care about things that happen in the news, and I require sound reasoning for why I am supposed to care. If I point out [I don't care because] X happens all the time, and your only response is "whataboutism," then all you're doing is attempting to make me look stupid on the internet, another thing I don't care about. I walk away feeling like I still don't care. You walk away feeling like you somehow proved me wrong because (China | USA | Democrats | Republicans) are still bad because whataboutism somehow makes me wrong.

Basically, anyone who sincerely argues "whataboutism" on the internet should probably have their keyboard taken away.

Exactly.

And, furthermore, the finding is akin to a form of survivorship bias. 'We found they stopped talking to each other and promoting hate online.' Okay, and what did they do next? Did they just stop hating people? Did they figure out a way to start meeting in person without Facebook to mediate the conversation? Did some of them become increasingly isolated that they decided to act out? Did some people who weren't members of the hate group happen to see this form of censorship and start to change their own minds? I'm not saying any of these outcomes are what happened or are inevitable, I'm wondering how they can call this real science when they don't even bother looking at the other effects outside of their water-is-wet conclusion.

It seems fair to discuss because we all know that research like this will be used to justify censoring "hate" groups that are not actually hate groups.

Watch the scientism-believers come out of the woodwork to accuse you of asking this in bad faith. It is, of course, largely the same group of people who will redefine "hate" organization to include people who, for example, didn't want to get vaccinated against COVID-19 [1][2][3].

They know that "hate" can be redefined in any manner as they wish, and if they can correlate hate <=> censorship is beneficial, and they can correlate anything-I-don't-like <=> hate, then they can correlate anthing-I-don't-like <=> censorship is beneficial. But they want to pretend you're the "sea lion" in some moronic comic as an ironic shorthand to disrupt and short-circuit a serious conversation on censorship.

1: https://theconversation.com/the-inherent-racism-of-anti-vaxx...

2: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/eric-clapt...

3: https://www.theedgemedia.org/purebloods-anti-semitism-white-...

Nowhere am I suggesting they should nationalize it. Reread the comment.

> Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it.

Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt. Let companies that did not go under for such awful practices pick up the pieces. Why is bankruptcy acceptable for Kmart but not 3M? Be specific, no nonsense about how they are the only company in existence ever capable of creating some mysterious chemical yet also only have a $50B market capitalization (if their chemicals were so rare, impossible to produce, and highly sought after, market cap would be higher).

> The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again.

I don't understand. You think the taxpayer cannot be on the hook, yet you also think we are obligated to bail out the business by nationalizing it? What do you think nationalizing a business entails? It would literally place the taxpayer on the hook for that business. Nationalizing it would not imply any guarantee the business remains profitable, and future losses would be owned by the public.

I do agree that execs should be punished more severely though. We are absolutely on the same page there. And I don't care if the current execs are not the original execs responsible. As far as I can tell, they've allowed the problem to continue if not get worse.

Most of the problems software engineers are solving today are business problems defined by stakeholders in a business.

And yes, I agree we should be an expert in something. Harping on binary seems like a waste of time, however. I would certainly like that people are interested enough in the field that they spend their time learning as much as they can about CS, but I'm under no illusion that I'm going to automatically be more productive or better as a software engineer because I know bit-fields.

PS: Thank you for downvoting me.

Do you suppose it's possible that accessing the DOM to add a div implicitly requires access to page data?

It's absolutely insane to pretend most software engineers need to do any of these things. We're making billions of dollars in aggregate without knowing this stuff. Most people aren't writing their own data compression algorithms, and we sure as shit aren't writing cryptographic algorithms because we're told to leave that one to the experts (i.e., mathematicians).

I'm guessing 80% don't even know bit-field flags and never have to use them, despite them being relatively simple. It would also take someone moderately capable at understanding math less than an hour to "learn." I learned them when I was 13 because I fucked around with MUD codebases, and I don't think I am special for it.

You're obligated to define exactly what you mean when you talk about "knowing" binary.

They have probably seen dozens of videos of elderly people living in the city getting knockout-gamed and felt frightened that this is what cohousing is supposed to mean.

The "other guys" as in Stan Getz and Joao Gilberto (her husband)? You write this as if they were nothing to the song.

Hey, I think that's fair too.

If I'm just going to use this sitting at my desk, I'll stick with my monitor instead.

My bigger worry is how I would type, if that's at all possible. My assumption, like the sibling comment notes, is that eye tracking would replace mouse input.

And I'm not yet typing code by talking to a computer. Maybe AI will work for 'typing' by talking and using copilot or some similar tech, but I've yet to try that and am not that confident that software has caught up to allow me to navigate folders and files within a codebase, edit the code, restart any servers if that's necessary, test (run tests, or visit a page, or send a curl request), post a pull request, etc. All of the disjoint steps I need to do to work, which change depending on the task, would need to work confidently in a system like this for me to switch over. And if speech is the way forward, I think my wife is going to be pretty upset with me since I WFH.

Reagan hasn't been governor of California or president of the US for a long time.

> I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians!

My least favorite part of this was the local media pretended this wasn't true. They pretended it vociferously despite this being such an obvious lie.

I agree in a sense, it's a grey area, given the only crime is a person is literally copying a work and enjoying/using it. So my biggest issue with IP laws are that the potential punishments for copying do not come close to matching the crime, as they're quite draconian.

And I find it hard to believe that the spirit of these laws was intended to target end-users who copy something to watch for their own personal enjoyment, rather than to target people who copied works in an attempt to earn a profit personally. The only way the punishment fits the crime is in the latter situation, IMO. Yet I assume the laws are applied more frequently to the former situation.

Cool, a gish-gallop of whataboutisms. Good job.

> This is exactly the type of thing an internet white knight would write. You're ridiculous.

I'm responding to a comment that is defending another comment that said:

> o7 thank you for your service

> Where one piracy site dies, a thousand spawn from its corpse.

Et cetera. Have a nice day, enemy.

Many corporations make billions. That isn't an argument to not pay for the goods or services they offer.

I'll add, since I'm not the person you were replying to, I don't care about who gets paid what. I don't care if the actors get paid or not. All I care about is some basic consistency if we're going to have morals about anything. Is it wrong to steal? Yes? Then piracy is wrong. (Or, no? Then let's skip this conversation entirely, you are my enemy.) Yeah, piracy is pretty easy. Yeah, it feels harmless when we do it. Should individuals get fined tens of thousands of dollars for infractions? No. But I'd say it's about as wrong as stealing a loaf of bread from a grocery store. To pretend it's a noble cause is transparent garbage, and unless you can pose an argument that doesn't complain about how much corporations make, I'm not interested.

There appears to be nothing underpinning your worldview for why the industry you work in ought not allow open thievery, but this one should. Yes, their corporations make billions of dollars, just like in every other industry where theft is not tolerated. Or perhaps you support open thievery everywhere at any time, in which case, like I said, you are my enemy.

Uh, because it responded to a comment that wrote a bunch of 2009-era Guy Fawkes mask-wearing redditor bullshit that attempts to make piracy noble.

> o7 thank you for your service

(o7 would be a salute)

> Where one piracy site dies, a thousand spawn from its corpse.

False and nonsense, especially in 2023.

> Maybe the media companies will eventually pull their heads out of their collective arses and quit their cartel...

Okay, I'll stop here.

I'm fine with piracy, personally. I'd prefer we just admit that you're mostly using it to download movies, music, and television shows for free. This isn't some noble fight for freedom. We're talking about watching mindless bullshit content like Star Wars, without paying for it. Piracy proponents, and comments like the one starting this thread, make it seem like we're entitled to this content. We're not. But I'll admit, I don't watch much in the way of tv or movies any more anyway, so the whole debate is lost on me.

I just rolled my eyes at the ridiculous tone of that comment, like they're freedom fighters. It's self-important bullshit.

Not impossible, but it might as well be. Politically, I see it as virtually impossible for 'both sides' to compromise on higher taxes and lower spending. I wish we could do that, but it seems hopeless.

Agreed. I would add that he probably shouldn't be budgeting to have that money go into his 401k in the first place. He's paying more in tax + penalty to do this.

I have. But if you have a point that isn't ad hominem, I'm happy to listen.