zeraholladay

The first is the general public's lack of understanding of documentaries as an art form. Documentaries are essentially narratives presented as unfiltered reality ("facts"). Most folks don't truly understand this, or they lose sight of it through suspension of disbelief. That is, they don't know or forget about the film crew, editing, framing, and other artistic choices that form what they see. The illusion becomes invisible; they see only "facts" rather than a constructed narrative designed to guide their interpretation.

Second, filmmakers often use deception as an artistic device in documentaries. Mockumentaries are a pretty clear example of subverting the conventions of documentary filmmaking. It's a bit meta for most folks, so I could see how someone without much media literacy might totally miss this. But it's definitely a very interesting artistic choice given the subject matter.

That being said, I've also seen plenty of "scientific code" that's totally incomprehensible even to the point where the scientist who wrote the code can't debug it. So there's an extreme in the other direction.

FWIW, I tend to find the opposite. Maybe the people I know are just more vocal about things that make them look good to others.

A pure consumer is not worth anything to YouTube or any other platform if they're not paying or can't be advertised to. They're just a cost with no benefit.

I disagree but I understand what you're getting at. In the case of YouTube, you may be correct (or more correct than me). I'm thinking of platforms like Strava or dating apps where an active user population is part of the attraction to upsell features to paying customers.

My understanding is that content creators see very little or next to none of the ad revenue. The content creators are the reason people are using YouTube. So I prefer to support them through Patreon. Second, I've heard that the vast, vast majority of content creators make next to nothing through YouTube -- these content creators are paying the opportunity cost to "make it big" or simply enjoy making content or using YouTube as a promotional vehicle for other services. I'm not trying to define a moral equivalence of why it's right to directly support content creators but not YouTube (Google is making enough money off me so that I have a clear conscience), but for the price of their ad free service I'd like to see a more equitable distribution.

Regarding reciprocation, a lot of platforms offer a free tier and then offer additional features for paid subscribers. There's the principle of reciprocation at play: they give me something for free and that then makes me more likely to pay for additional features. But I'm only willing to pay for features, not to have an annoyance, like ads, removed. The conditions I'd have to agree to feel coerced ... like making an agreement with Darth Vader: "pray YouTube doesn't alter the deal further by now only blocking 50% of ads for a paid subscriber." What do I, as an end user, get out of this other than feeling hostile towards YouTube?

It's my computational device and my internet connection. I think there's a very complex argument to be made but this isn't the forum for it.

    export CDPATH=.:~/projects
    export PS1="$(uname -n)$ "
    alias ltr='ls -ltr'

    $ ll file.txt
    -rw-r--r--  1 zera  staff  0 Jan  7 20:28 file.txt
    Ctrl-p, Ctrl-a, Ctrl-d, Ctrl-d, r,m
    $ rm file.txt

    $ rm *.txt

Ensure you overwrite a file (or aren't):

    $ cp -i ~/file.config /etc/

That's good about your dad tho. I don't know if I'd be able to make that kind of change if I'm ever in his position.

Second, and this is a broad statement, society is currently in a phase of devaluing the older mind. We're too quick to assume older minds cannot learn as easily, and older minds accept this as fact in a self-fulfilling way. The reality of the situation is that we're living longer, so we'll need to make valuable contributions later in our lives. Tech definitely isn't a mistress for 50+ year-olds, but that's a problem with our culture and not technology.

   while (*dst++ = *src++);

I read a book called "Money Ball" last year. One of the lessons I took away is that a successful baseball team can be created from undervalued stats (i.e. irrational beliefs in value cause inefficiencies). This trend you described forms teams of walkers xor home-runners, for example. I don't know why I believe this (I'm subject to my own criticism), but I strongly believe teams with multiple talents outperform teams with one talent (generalists vs niche).

EDIT: While I agree with your sentiment and my comment could be interpreted has harsh depending on the tone of voice, I've said this kind of thing before (x is made of people) and always wished I had clarified it more. So please think of it as more of an invitation rather than a challenge.

I see Reddit as a self-aggrandizing media outlet. Members generally accept liberal values as status quo. Meaningful discussion imitates base prime time political discourse.

Some of my specific gripes are:

1. Racism on Reddit is an acceptable subtext, as long as the subtext is funny. 2. Sexism on Reddit is acceptable as long as your mother, wife, or daughter are not directly considered. 3. Israel is wrong on Reddit.

I know I'm painting a pretty nasty picture of a lot of people, and I apologize to those who don't deserve it, but I've seen group think plenty of times before in my life and Reddit is it.

First, the virus should have been less interesting.

Second, the true goal of the virus might not be the actual attack but rather, like the scenes from the Bourne movies spying on Pamela Landy from the rooftop across the street, the realization that someone knows exactly what you're doing and they're more sophisticated than you. Further, it indicates there's a hole in your organization from which information is leaking or might be leaking (even worse if you can't find something that doesn't exist). I've followed enough of the Wikileaks controversy regarding their internal disputes to conclude the weakest link in many organizations is their structure and individual members. The true goal might be psychological.

Either way, both of these systems are instructive. You should be able to reverse a process and discover its discrete parts, if that's your goal.

$ make life easier

Your life has been made easier: 70,500,000,000 dollars has been deposited into your bank account.

"There's plenty of challenge for anyone who wants to find it."

There are problems that haven't been solved yet and problems that can't be solved. Most problems can't be solved, since the majority of (our) problems are psychological (i.e. there are no axioms, assumptions, systems, etc to define this class of problem) -- the rest are impossible.

The problems that haven't yet been solved are actually interesting tho. The knowledge systems for these classes of problems are heuristic; i.e. a process of discovery and experience. The intention is often not to keep everything difficult but to keep everything knowable, which is contrary to the "don't make me think" principle of design.

More common is anonymous people on the net who threaten to do so. My point is a bot is predictable, but humans are emotional and irrational. Further, you can't always tell the difference between the snakes and the monsters in an anonymous environment (notice I'm not anonymous). Thus, I'd be more willing to argue with a bot.