greenhexagon

Just accept that you can be laid off and manage your life and finances accordingly.

I know people who got laid off recently, with like 6 months severance. They're planning vacations, getting around to the projects around the house they've been putting off and maybe casually posting on Linkedin to see if anyone in their network has good opportunities. Even after their severance runs out, years of tech salary should make it trivial to build up a decent cushion of savings.

Getting laid off is only a big deal if you've mismanaged your finances. 15 years of FAANG is enough to retire. 15 years of regular tech is enough to save years of living expenses.

The problem is we've all seen this pattern before.

Push the disabled by default, opt-in only version. Face only small backlash because it's opt-in. Then in a later update, switch it to on by default but with an easy opt-out. Then make the opt-out harder or disable other functionality unless users opt-in.

This general pattern happens for all sorts of privacy-invading data collection, advertisements, etc. Companies release a good product, then the enshittification slowly happens over multiple updates, each of which is only a small enough step to not cause too much outrage, until the end product is completely user-hostile.

There is much about China that I don't understand, but I'm curious about the ownership in the "ghost cities".

Given the ability of the CCP to significantly control major industries and movement of people, is it not possible that someone might buy an apartment in a "ghost city" while living in a rural area or renting in another city, expecting that people and jobs would flow to the city once it was completed?

Basically I don't really understand all the details, nuance and different corporate and governmental players involved in the "ghost city" phenomenon, but I'd almost expect that the government could make a "ghost city" into a "real city" in no time, by shutting down factories in one city and opening them there, or by changing internal migration restrictions.

Can you step outside of your own point of view to realize this is all kinda silly?

When you walk down the street, people might look at you and imagine you in ways you don't like. They might whisper about you to their friends. They might write a story where you're the villain or the fool. They might draw an unflattering picture of you. You might experience anxiety or fear or other "psychological harms" worrying about any of these things happening.

I have compassion and sympathy for the fears, anxieties and discomforts people might experience from worrying about how other people imagine them, or use their likeness in works of fiction. But that sympathy doesn't mean I want the government to police people's thoughts, stories or art.

| If you want to fight against non consensual AI porn, you need someone to be the face of it

Isn't this just an emotionally charged way of suggesting people fight against artistic freedom, freedom of speech, etc?

I have literally zero concern about someone making AI porn that looks like me (or my spouse, family, celebrities, politicians, etc). People have already had photoshop and before that imaginations. It's maybe a little weird, icky or uncomfortable to think about, but that's a small price to pay for living in a free liberal democracy.

I'm far more concerned that this will give powerful people another tool to crack down on journalists, artists, activists, documentary filmmakers, etc. Or even just any independent creative who attempts to publish work outside of one of the major copyright cartel corporations.

Curious how different our experiences of "culture" can be.

I'm an American in my 40s. I've never seen "glorification of scams" in any mainstream culture and can't really think of any subculture where that would be the case... maybe used car sales, crypto or drug dealers or something?

I've also never seen any sort of "hyper-masculization" shown in a positive light in mainstream culture. I've always been pressured by society to present as less masculine and it's common to see masculinity referred to as as "toxic" and equated with negative traits or externalities. In fact, it's an entirely one-sided debate at this point. Suggesting any positive aspect of masculinity is considered sexist, misogynistic and unacceptable among the people who's opinions carry power in society. Negative aspects of masculinity are of course strongly encouraged, reinforced and amplified.

One could obviously exit the limbo by just ending up lower status.

Imagine an actor or director who's very successful and high status. Then their subsequent work is less well received. They might have a period of "status limbo" while their cultural relevance and status are unclear. If they end up teaching improv in Chicago, they've arguably exited the limbo at a lower status than a star of Hollywood or Broadway.

Young people could also be in "status limbo" by for instance completing a prestigious degree but not yet securing a corresponding job. A 22 year old taking a year after graduating to study for the MCAT is in status limbo. If they score well and get accepted into a top med school - high status. If they don't get into med school, they're an unemployed 23 year old with a minimally useful BA.

This is more like, a gross oversimplification of the first chapter of a freshman intro to economics.

This is to economics what "assume the cow is a perfect sphere moving on a frictionless surface without wind resistance" type of problem is to physics.

In the real world, profit absolutely does not correspond to "taking advantage" or "extracting value through arbitrage".

Please don't troll on HN.

Theft is taking something away from someone. Copying by definition doesn't. Pretending it's equivalent to, or even similar to, "theft" is ridiculous.

"Woke" started as a term used by young American social progressives as a reference to becoming aware of things which they had previously been unaware. Sort of a "Neo waking up from being in the Matrix" type of waking from a dream, delusion or false reality.

This could cover almost any social, economic or political issue. Generally though it was used around issues related to race, gender or sexuality. People would sometimes use the phrase "Stay Woke" as a shorthand for something like "Stay aware of racial or gender disparities and work to counter them".

The term was subsequently used in a derisive, pejorative or mocking manner by people who perceived the first group (the "woke" people) to be factually incorrect or excessive in their demands.

People using a phrase like "woke nonsense" are expressing disdain for inserting race/gender/sexuality issues where they don't belong or being frustrated by too-extreme measures being advocated to address such issues.

There's my attempt at writing a very neutral etymology of the usage of the term.