sporkenfang

Kudos on the IDE, kudos on helping your girlfriend, but it could have done without the "I'll solve all the problems with technology and then she'll see me as the hero I am" schtick. It made it kind of an uncomfortable read, even though you did clearly build something with a use case, which is always admirable.

I've had a thing ever since grad school (I lived in a 400 sq. ft. apartment, so it was necessity then) that if I buy a thing, I have to donate something else -- particularly for clothes. It's amazing how much less crap I've accumulated than friends and family of a similar age.

For whatever reason,

> "I've been able to track down some well-meaning but ultimately flawed attempts at fixing things that then blew up and became something much bigger. The folks who I pinged about it were amazed that I somehow had managed to "guess" that a specific member of their team had been poking at a specific box"?

read like "I didn't like what someone did on a machine I had to troubleshoot, and told their manager" to me.

I was also reading this prior to coffee, mea culpa.

There are two things I don't like here:

- the author seems to call out specific individuals, by name, to their team leads, based on where they were ssh'd in, instead of bringing up the issue with that person first and asking for the logic of why they were on the box doing the thing (sounds like a lot of assumptions combined with finger pointing)

- it sounds like there's no well-configured monitoring or observability at the DC/rack/machine level involved, at all, which is surprising in a modern enterprise setup

With you 100%. Sure, meeting people at work happens— in America people spend 8-12 hours a day there. But best to not act on anything until one or both parties don’t work at the same place.

My dad had a slightly gross phrase for this: ‘don’t shit where you eat’.

As in there’s no sense in potentially poisoning workplace relations if a romantic overture or relationship doesn’t go well.

If you want to go the low-commitment route, a lot of makerspaces have plenty of equipment for building / making activities and offer classes in subjects as diverse as TIG welding and sewing.

Actually, it's a relatively popular harvesting practice for non-organic crops -- kill them all at the same time so they're all ready to harvest. Differs by region, but afaik in the US foods labelled as organic can't be harvested in this way.

You're correct, nobody is claiming that. I simply pointed out that "free speech" and saying whatever the hell you want are two different things. One is protected by law. One is not, and if I held an opinion you found morally wrong or vice versa, the other is not beholden to hear it, nor to serve the opinion holder if either party is a business. And I don't think that's bad.

Sure society may have prevailing moral standards, but the thing about having an opinion (which I think I'm proving with this comment) is we all, myself included, have forgotten that means we don't have to share it.

I do! Not because I feel like I know anything, but because logically I know there's quite some distance between an engineer and someone wanting to be an engineer. I see it every time my team gets a summer intern.

I got started by re-connecting with a group I led at university and being introduced to folks teaching business and practical engineering skills at a local accelerator (which seems to be primarily populated by college students and people without much experience trying to start their own companies). It's been a learning process -- both in terms of learning what people really ought to know before they apply for their first job versus what's normally taught and trying to fill in some of the missing bits, and learning where I myself have skills gaps.

I found this (mental health issues of colonization) to be one of the most interesting parts of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. It drags on a bit but plenty of folks go batshit, so that lends a tinge of realism.

Research papers cite scientific sources, sorry. Out of curiosity I've read the document being discussed here and clicked a random sample of the links and none of them I clicked led to peer-reviewed science (though a couple are Go links and a lot are Wikipedia).

The tone of the language is nice, but the Wikipedia citations remind me of my time teaching high school five years ago. Anyone who wrote a paper without citing in a significant way five scientific sources (google scholar provides free pdfs, how awesome is that?) got an automatic zero.

Wikipedia has good information but it's hardly what one would want backing themselves up for something like this.

I think the answer is to put the money you'd spend eating fish toward solutions for this so that fish is safer to eat again, until that's true.