I think it depends on what you’re used to. If you’re in an abusive relationship or socially isolated, a single positive social interaction can feel like a breakthrough.
I would argue that a negative social interaction would feel exponentially more harmful at a time like you describe, in which you're already feeling generally unsafe or insecure. My fear of others is always so much worse when I am hurting for some positive feedback from the world.
I was on some forums back then and it literally took over the entire forum and installed itself into the moderation team. The entire social environment transformed as a result.
Say what you will about the positives or negatives of feminism, but that did literally occur.
It commandeered most of the culture in fact, and began policing everyone’s speech, actions, pastimes and fantasies. Then it seemed to eat itself and disappear.
I put this disappearance down to two factors: “me too” alienated too many women, and also the millennials who drove the movement aged out and eased up on their online activities. Gen Z didn’t want any part in it so there were no successors.
Today is like life post covid: we all know it happened but somehow it’s unreal and unbelievable. Some refuse to believe it ever happened at all.
yeah, if you were going with the political cultural phenomena explanations rather than merely reduced socialization, the "incel" movements are a far more recent phenomenon than feminism...
Unclear if this is some kind of reactionary retaliation for perceived favorability toward Cambodia or if Trump’s apparently favorability toward Cambodia is retaliation for what he may have already known about Thailand’s shift toward EU weaponry. They’re hardly the first country to start shopping around, so the latter wouldn’t surprise me.
This is not some reciprocal action, it's just logical fallout that the US is no longer reliable as a military ally under this administration, and capable of electing similar leadership in the future. Much, much more of this is ahead. It will impact the USD.
Ages ago, before I had any real professional experience, I was blown away by Steenberg’s demos and enamored by his tech talks. The demos still impress me and have aged well, but today I’m glad I didn’t fall into the trap of taking his development advice as scripture.
His name has been popping up a lot more recently. I would be worried about the impact he might be having on young programmers, but honestly I doubt his worst advice would survive in industry anyway. I didn’t watch this particular video but his recent talk at Better Software Conference was illuminating, in a bad way.
The title is the only good thing about this talk, his whole ideology about building a WRAPPER around everything and maintaining hundreds of these wrappers is going to make you NEVER finish a single project.
Also it just feels like this entire talk is an advert for C89, I do enjoy playing with the language sometimes especially when I want to scratch my software architecture itch (I use it kind of like pseudocode to develop a data model for my application), but it's simply not a silver bullet.
I've been watching his screencasts on and off for a couple of years and am always slightly aghast at how he can be really spot on about some very specific things and be wildly off the mark about most of the things regarding software design/architecture.
Anyway, people should finish projects, that's the most important part, my 50 weekend projects and 12 registered domains have been screaming this at me for years.
Nah I did Ayahuasca and I'm an empathetic person who most would consider normal or at least well-adjusted. If it's drug related it would most definitely be something else.
I’m inclined to believe your upbringing plays a much larger role.
What is the strategy, in your view? Maybe something like this? --
1. All government employees get access to ChatGPT
2. ChatGPT increasingly becomes a part of people's daily workflows and cognitive toolkit.
3. As the price increases, ChatGPT will be too embedded to roll back.
4. Over time, OpenAI becomes tightly integrated with government work and "too big to fail": since the government relies on OpenAI, OpenAI must succeed as a matter of national security.
5. The government pursues policy objectives that bolster OpenAI's market position.
6. openAi continues to train "for alignment" and gets significant influence over the federal government workers who are using the app and toolkit, and thus the workflows and results thereof. eg. sama gets to decide who gets social sercurity and who gets denied
Yes, but there was also a step 0 where DOGE intentionally sabotaged existing federal employee workflows, which makes step 2 far more likely to actually happen.
Yes, but the federal government uses far more than just Office.
Microsoft is very far from being at risk of failing, but if it did happen, I think it's very likely that the government keeps it alive. How much of a national security risk is it if every Windows (including Windows Server) system stopped getting patches?
