ayyy

Surely there will be a tipping point when human drivers are considered riskier than AI drivers. It seems far in the future, but it's probably not when you consider all of the human errors made every day.

Not that anyone cares about that, of course, because agency is preferred over outcome.

Also, it's super annoying that now I need multiple addons (bypass-paywalls-clean, ublock origin, and 'i don't care about cookies') just to browse basic blogs these days without jumping through hoops.

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of All You Need Is Considered Harmful for Fun and Profit"

If there's a Holy Inquisition coming, it's not bad advice to become notionally Catholic for however long it lasts.

As a practical matter, you'd have to be insane to be espousing very unpopular views under the same name you use for employment.

If I do something outside of work in a public way, and a significant percentage of coworkers find it objectionable, it will shrink my professional network and make building relationships more difficult. Nobody wants to work with someone they find morally repulsive. There's no legal recourse available for this.

Also, from my coworkers' point of view, I'm the one causing the workplace to be unpleasant, and they might start a campaign to have me removed.

From my employer's point of view, I've done some action outside of work that's caused a problem, and now we have a problem at work. That means I've caused a problem at work.

If I can be terminated without legal risk, my employer can terminate me to satisfy the other coworkers.

If I can't be terminated legally, then I can be sidelined, put on a PIP, and eventually forced out of the organization. There's unlikely to be any legal recourse available to me if this is done correctly with good documentation.

Maybe employment shouldn't work this way, but it does.

> I don't see how that is hard to understand.

For a growing percentage of the workplace, knowing that a coworker has a socially unacceptable opinion is creating a hostile work environment.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but you're literally wrong. If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things.

I'm not super keen on how this is all shaking out either, but it's pretty obvious how to avoid problems at this point.

In practice, most FE jobs consist of a designer that produces mocks in Figma or InDesign or similar, then you as the engineer take those mocks and make JS+CSS out of it.

As for what the designers do, it's mostly copying ideas from popular apps and tweaking it to appease the product people, who are requesting changes to appease leadership.

At the time, "second screen" was the term I heard used for those types of experience. The only prominent example I can think of these days is kahoot, which is only sort of the same idea.

I steam clean it (hot water + hot pan + stiff brush), then back on the stove to dry off and apply a light layer of avocado oil.

Leave it shiny on your stove and ready for next use.

The important thing with cast iron is to clean it immediately, before you've started eating. But this is actually pretty easy because steam cleaning is so effective and cast iron is really durable.

It takes about 30 seconds to clean it and rub with oil.

That would be nice, but the real answer is to make it easier to work without a degree.

Most people aren't really there for a liberal arts education; they're there to try and secure future employment.

Trevor's thesis is here: "Set aside motives and intentions, just look at technology, technology alone ... If you are in a fight where the other person cannot beat you, how hard should you retaliate when they try to hurt you? ... When you have this much power, what is your responsibility?"

To arrive at this question, he judges the conflict in absolute numbers dead and injured on both sides, and concludes that because more Palestinians are harmed than Israelis, Israel should show more restraint.

I understand his point, but I don't know if I would want my government to show restraint if rockets were landing in my city. I would probably want the enemy thoroughly destroyed so that I could feel safe. "But don't kill too many of them!" would not be my first thought.

Similarly, if a much stronger enemy was raiding my villages and taking my land, I would probably want generations of insurgency to make them pay for the harm they've done. "Make sure those rockets only hit military targets!" would not be my first thought.

I think having a measured response to your home being attacked is too much to ask for humans.

Yes, I've conflated the idea of "needing" something with the idea of "deserving" something.

For example, some people need food, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call that hunger.

Other people need housing, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call that homelessness.

Some need sex, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call those people incels.

You might be confused because Maslow thought sex was on the same level as food and sleep.

Of course, today, the idea that men need sex simply because they are alive is repulsive.