> The world doesn't revolve around children.
Well, that’s the thing. It kind of does. And these days there’s an argument to be made that the world doesn’t value children enough. As long as fertility is below 2.1 that’s objectively true. It means we’re dying out.
If the author wants to be able to retire, there needs to be kids, and the industrialised world has made that too undesirable.
Honestly this feels like a trifle compared to the many UX atrocities out there. Sometimes you have to make the UI more inconvenient for some to make it more convenient for others
Given this, and assuming it’s true, I wonder to what degree a controversy can be predicated on usage of an approved application on an approved Government device. I’m sure there is plenty to nitpick around the edges (“classified vs. top secret,” “managed device vs. personal device,” “expiring messages,” etc.), but the fundamental transgression cannot be “using Signal.”
More importantly, I just don’t think people care — beyond pearl-clutching, tribal narratives and palace intrigue — about the safety of “classified data.” And the sad part is that it’s obfuscating the real story, which is the federal government’s seemingly indiscriminate bombing of Yemeni residences in an attempt to execute a mildly infamous terrorist. It’s the banal tone with which the government officials discuss it – like it’s a new product launch or a weekly check-in meeting – that we should find disturbing. Nobody cares about the communication medium; if anything, we should wish for _more_ transparency and visibility into discussions like this…
(Also, it’s quite an endorsement of Signal.)
Heavy llm chat usage leads to loneliness | or | Loneliness leads to heavy chat usage.
To my eye the second seems far more likely than the first.
For me, the only thing that can reduce loneliness is conversation with another conscious entity. Many, if not most, people are barely conscious so this is hard to find in the physical world. But I don't believe llms are conscious, so for me they are a complete dead end for reducing loneliness whatever other virtues the may have.
Rather than retiring on that money, I'm back at it again, and I'm working even harder.
I know what mediocrity and complacency is. I've worked surrounded by it, and I'll do anything to avoid it. I don't want that bullshit where coworkers strive to do the minimum and everybody plays hot potato to see who will take responsibility.
I'll take responsibility. And I'll take the high comp that comes with it. Not have some union pencil in my salary band according to arbitrary rules that don't directly map to solving customer problems.
For example in a pseudolanguage:
data FooResult = Number | Error
def foo(n: Number): FooResult = ...
foo(42) match {
case n: Number => print(n + 1)
case e: Error => // handle error case
}
This gets you very far most of the time. If the tag overhead matters (which should largely only matter in a hot loop), then try to refactor so that the hot loop doesn't error out.Granted in many languages the above cannot be expressed succinctly and is often avoided for this reason.
What is fuckyou money at this point? Take the Mega Millions lottery jackpot, it's default is $20 million nominal. You get cash payout instead of annuity, now it's about $10 million. Maybe you live in a state without income tax (I do), but the feds get their cut, now it's $5 millionish. You look for a nicer house (been living in an apartment)... and, since you don't want to lose it to property tax arrears all that quickly, you budget for that too for the next 20 years. How much house can you afford? Turns out, you're getting at most some upper middle class home in a second class city. Maybe with a nice car in the garage too. No live-in maids and chefs, no 40,000sqft mansions with indoor Olympic swimming pools and gold-plated toilets.
Hardly seems like fuckyou money at all. I think while we weren't looking, inflation snuck in and changed what fuckyou money actually was. You basically need to not just be a multimillionaire anymore, but a sub-billionaire.