That was by far the most hostile cookie banner I've ever seen by a lot. It required multiple levels of saying no with a bid level of clicking reject a few hundred times. It wasn't worth it.
Delete the banner from the DOM. They can't process your data legally until you pressed that button. That's why the reload is. When you delete it, you never pressed the button.
Note that this is considered not freely given consent by various data protection authorities, including the Dutch one (quite strongly; could find a source but would be in Dutch) and the European-wide collective of them (more weakly): https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-consent-or-pa... It's not like GDPR is new or dubiously worded on this aspect. They're willfully ignoring both ethical boundaries and the law
I don't know why people keep sending me / sharing Heise links. There's more than one news website in the world
I live and work in Seattle and I don't hate AI. Further, I know people here that are just as overly excited about AI as it's proponents on HN.
I've also heard complaints about the mandatory use of the tools in the office and the pageantry involved.
I've seen people in love with garbage they produced with AI.
I'm annoyed by the way they are being pushed in my face but hate is really too strong. I've tried using them and gotten total garbage. I think that's because my prompting sucks because I know people that love the tools and have shared great output from them. Those people are a minority in my opinion.
Trying to over simplify the experiences of humanity is a fool's game.
And Valve has been deeply rewarded as a result. The stance that you must abuse customers to maximize economic success will be looked back upon as the stupidity it is.
Not really. The value to a thirsty soul of water in the desert is as high as they value their own life (to some there is little) and have a currency of value to the seller. Still, once thirst is quenched the value to that soul drops nearer to zero.
For an optional good the value only rises to the point that there is excess asset in the inventories of those that would like to add the option.
I would suggest what you are looking for is that some scarcities are shifted by each new technology. Things like the sincere attention of others or more exclusive emotional attachments become relatively more scarce in a goods abundant existence. Earlier, insights on where to apply the tool and to where one should attend become more scarce.
Something you would have to accept if you believe your statement is that you would never value (i.e. need) water again if we could produce far more than we ever could use. Your body's need and use would not cease even if the economics might collapse.
Financializing everything can lead one into foolish conclusions.
I do not think value and scarcity are identical, merely that they go hand in hand. In the desert, I would pay a lot of money for water. In the west, I would never pay for a glass of water, even if it's blistering hot and I'm parched. The requirement is the same, the value only changes due to scarcity.
What you are talking about is needs, which is an entirely different discussion. Value can also be used to discuss needs (how valuable is something to survive), but I think I'm quite clearly using it to describe something different.
The Merkle tree used by git is only a component of blockchain. Also in three or four years blockchain will have been in use for decades itself (i.e. two).
I would say yes. Your weaknesses, if truly shared are weaknesses which can be used against you to hurt you and thereby you are vulnerable to them. Further, even if you don't care about the judgment of others then you can still be harmed by decisions of and social coordination between people who judge you.
We agree, assuming self knowledge, that the judgments of others tell you about them rather than about you.
This leads me to a conclusion that someone can only be truly vulnerable around people that you might consider toxic?
It's unavoidable in many cases, but I'd prefer a life where I would surround myself with people who tried to build each other and not take advantage of each other. I think it's definitely possible, and I think I'm pretty much there at least.
This leads me to the next point, which is that I don't think it's a problem about men unwilling to be vulnerable, it's more so about them happening to be around people who might use it against them (and it succeeding effectively, ergo there being a critical mass of people supporting this).
Not using a capacity may atrophy it but does not remove it. I haven't cherry picked with git in a very long time but I could if I wanted to. I'm not violent but physics still allows it. Toxicity is not required for people to be vulnerable.
I totally prefer the lift each other up crowd too. They exist, often in the same spaces as everyone else.
IMO, the problem comes down to a current inability to scale social knowing.
However, you seem to want to grind on an axe and I worry I might be getting in the way of that. I suggest you consider what has you activated and whether you can take away it's power to echo through and continue hurting you.
If you are currently a target of DV, reach out; there are lots of people and organizations who want to support you and have tools to do so. This may not apply to you but seemed appropriate place to remind us all.
> However, you seem to want to grind on an axe and I worry I might be getting in the way of that. I suggest you consider what has you activated and whether you can take away it's power to echo through and continue hurting you.
It seems to me (and clearly I could be wrong) that you really want to express certain sentiments. Another way to say it is that you seem to be engaging in motivated arguing. Said with the more standard idiom, that you have "an axe to grind".
I am honestly just curious what people think, it is an interesting topic. I have heard off and on throughout my life this idea about being vulnerable. I was never fully certain what people meant by that. Even in this thread it seems people think of it differently, but no one really goes into details to clarify.
E.g. what are some concrete examples of what would make a man be vulnerable?
In my opinion and in this context the common striped-down-to-its-consistent-core usage is taking the actions that expose one's inner/core emotional space/thoughts/feelings. FWIW I would agree that this doesn't have to be a true vulnerability in the dictionary or any other sense. I think many people talk past each other a lot without knowing it with this word. There is a lot of diversity in specific semantics so good question. The idea that one is vulnerable when one is known seems to encode the victim mindset many get stuck in but that's reality for many. Even when I yack at my therapists for years they still only learn small slivers of my whole person so certainly the broader being is not so vulnerable by sharing just little moments. I think openness is true strength (obvious caveats for secrets like passwords/PINs/et cetera. The contradicting position seems to be that by withholding and looking for opening for attack you position yourself for "winning". In the meantime, it seems to me, you lock in isolation and losing, missing your opportunity to connect, learn, and grow increasing your vulnerability over time. Busy night, rushed through writing so hopefully not too many errors or stupid thoughts.
[edit: Giving up control seems to be a common feature. Maybe more simply being willing to cooperate when your interactant could defect.]
Do you think there's something that you are intentionally hiding from your therapists that might make you vulnerable? Or it's just, that you don't have enough time to give full overview into yourself? I've gone to therapists and many different ones through my whole life too. Maybe in the past I had times when there were some things I might have not told them, but I feel like I'm pretty stream of consciousness now.
I think I'm a at a point in my life where I think that as long as with each person that I interact with, I'm looking to benefit both of our lives, I'm free to be myself. This wasn't always the case, and especially as a teenager, I was a lot more paranoid that people are out to get me, and in my 20s as well. I think I wasn't being myself because at those times it didn't seem like myself was received truly well.
But now if I think everything I do is to benefit both parties - or whoever is in my circle, there's nothing to be ashamed about anything that I do. And any situation I treat as being in a team together whether it's work, friends, or with my life partner.
So what I'm thinking still is - if I do it like that, I can communicate my thoughts without concern. And is that being vulnerable or not? I don't think I'm a "kind" person or trying to virtue signal here or something or a naive person that could be taken advantage of because of this strategy. I do think however life is too short to be playing any such social games trying to hide or seek advantage from. I'd prefer to truly understand people and what they think, transparency. I'd prefer any situation is treated as a team working on a unified goal, whether it's understanding the World, each other, or making best of any gathering in terms of jokes, entertainment, insight or whatever.
There are still situations of course where I have to be on guard, and these I'm really bothered by, e.g. corporate environments. Not the best place for me in that sense. But I try to be as honest as I can. I guess my main issue is that I work in weird passionate bursts and I have trouble doing organizing/maintenance/routine stuff, so I feel like I have to hustle around that and what actually gives me frequently feelings of being an impostor. That I can't do many of the routine things that I consider boring, yet are frequently expected. I sometimes do 16h of very passionate, efficient, effective work, but the other days I'm completely disinterested in my paid work and so I have to kind of fake being productive or something, as I'm not sure how it plays to people that I just can't be bothered to work if I don't feel like it. Like I can't be that 9 to 5 person, but I work in corporate environment, because it pays me the most.
> Giving up control seems to be a common feature.
That is also an interesting one. What does giving up control exactly means?
Another thing I've heard a lot about in my life. Someone's controlling, someone doesn't like to let go of control etc. I can understand how there are unhealthy controlling behaviors (e.g. intruding someone's freedom by pressuring or manipulating them to do what you want or not do what you don't want etc), but what does it mean to exactly giving up control over yourself?
I guess in romantic relationships maybe people can be vulnerable early in terms of getting hurt? E.g. putting yourself out there to be rejected. But I don't think that's where there's an actual problem with men? With men there must be this problem elsewhere.
Reading the article again - it doesn't seem to super register to me that it's the male vulnerability that is the problem. It seems there's an example of a homeless character that lies about being homeless. Is it that men don't want to leave an impression that they are unsuccessful? I can see how that's the case, although I think the main issue here is not the vulnerability, it's the fact that he's homeless in the first place. Perhaps if he didn't hide it, it could be solved somehow, but I don't know if that's exactly the case.
Given the context, I'd say vulnerability is a bundle concept used on average to hold a set of mostly unconsciously contradictory demands by women asking to have their needs met but in my experience not able nor willing to keep their side of the bargain but merely reciting their cue. Still, I'm not responding again to write more myself...
What do you think of vulnerability or whatever the thing you think we are discussing means to you?
> Do you think there's something that you are intentionally hiding from your therapists that might make you vulnerable? Or it's just, that you don't have enough time to give full overview into yourself?
Nothing hidden. Hiding from anyone feels pointless and would leave me even more alone. I would need to live in a shell/shadow of myself and have to do a bunch of work to keep track of the boundaries - exhausting waste! Part of it is that I am a very odd primate. I had life circumstances that had me separated from most people followed by an existential crisis at 8 with no adults that could even start to discuss or support me through it. That led me off into lots of weird spaces and problems (and problem definitions) that I've been working on since then. My struggles mostly have to do with how humanity undermines and underperforms while dragging those attempting better down. I often try to enlist therapist's creativity to help solve subproblems but having a forum to discuss these things is itself relieving.
I'm with you about being able to just speak one's mind. Living your values and in a positive economic outcomes oriented manner is a pretty bullet proof strategy but it assumes a certain amount of physical and economic safety. A lot of people get stuck in the "social intrigue" pattern/asynchronous information building suboptimal strategy. I spend a lot of time trying to invite people to join and give them the tools and supports that make it plausible.
> e.g. corporate environments
Yeah, I've kinda washed out of all the horsecarp that happens in those. After 20 years and lots of success I still enjoy the work but the people ruin it for me. I'm planing a transition to farming. These social patterns destroy industry performance but it seems locked in on them.
> What does giving up control exactly means?
One always, outside of dystopic electrode or mind control ray scenarios, retains exclusive control over their connected neutral infrastructure but in having attachment to values we can feel induced into tradeoffs we would otherwise reject. Becoming attached to a life partner can cause shifts in your priorities and gives up control of priority updates, at least partially, to an uncontrolled entity. Lies told, being stuck in abuse patterns, and many other factors can create adverse dynamics and all these are risked. Similar risks can manifest in a business or investment decision. Even the accumulated knowledge, increase communications efficiency, and shared experience of any long term relationship becomes an asset that can exert control. Usually a worthwhile risk and trade-off.
The problem isn't gendered, that's just a distraction to keep us distracted warring against ourselves. Not to ignore the gender associated norms that lead to gender correlated adverse outcomes inside of a societal system that reflects and countersolves these. The problem is the distributed defection status and the challenges of social coordination coupled with social knowing not scaling.
However, I kinda ignore your last bit. I think you are saying "isn't the submission to satisfying the external the problem?" I believe it is a problem but it's paired with the collaboration can lead to far better outcomes factor. Society puts a lot of effort to make us dependent and through it dependence subservient. On the platform of society some attempt to get us to enslave ourselves (and others) to the whims of those same. Through such tangles, we all lose and pay dearly, living underperforming lives in an underperforming existence.
Bazzite has been great for me so far except for a few exceptions to okay with friends. With the end of support for 10 and the hostile crap Windows has become, I'm trying to see how to transition. Anti-cheat and business agreements seem to be the only real remaining barriers.
And to the original question: no, consumers are moat to the enterprise licensing pot of gold.
If I could choose for myself and family, I'd suggest something more like 120, maybe 125. More IQ is frequently worse for well being. The benefits from correlations with positive factors get overwhelmed by emergent negative factors. Consider the stupid statement many smart people make "people are so stupid" (when in fact they are normal and the smart person is saying that they are on the upper end of the distribution). It reflects a fact of aloneness; a lack of peers; exclusion from socially controlled circles of success; endlessly watching struggle and underperformance; being stuck in a world that is dysfunctional because making it more functional is "too hard" for others; unlocking "because you're smart you have to do it for them"; and so many more little tortures and asynchronous social bullshit.
reply