A-grade bullshitter as the article puts it is pretty accurate. Thought I would test it and just asked ChatGPT if it knew the Voyager episode "11:59", the answer got everything wrong. Season, number and date, all incorrect.
>"11:59" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. The episode originally aired on February 9, 2000 as the 11th episode of the sixth season.
I watch a lot of DIY and gardening videos. Occasionally a video gives bad or even dangerous advice and a high dislike ratio can at least indicate that something is off. Comments are also useful to figure out what the creator is doing wrong, but the dislike ratio is a big indicator. This is a terrible move.
It's more practical at this point to start weaning off carrying a phone at all times. Not necessarily going off grid into the woods, just not carrying it unless you'll need it for something specific that day. I'm not sure more tech is going to solve this issue, we're just digging the hole deeper.
The special thing about mm wave antenna arrays is that you don't need to have a phone on you to be identified by the unique fingerprint of your gait. There's enough information density in that spectrum to resolve your identity accurately even if you're not carrying a phone. And there are papers demonstrating how to do just that.
Just noting that some of those articles are about mm wave devices explicitly designed as radars. But if you dig through you'll find articles geared towards "mm wave antenna arrays", which is a basically a keyword for 5G radio hardware.
Don't be ridiculous, you're just making assumptions based on your value system. I have children and I've passed on higher paying jobs (perhaps not double but 50%) out of principle. I also wouldn't work for Google whatever the compensation, and there are plenty of people who don't value money above everything else.
We all know people value things other than money, that was not the point.
The point here is whether there are a large number of people who would refuse a job Google for 2x their salary. On that specific point, I agree with the parent post, that there aren't that many.
What a mean and immature article. The "influencer" is stupid (and a psychopath apparently), everyone is stupid, well everyone except the author of the text.
It does read like someone very young wrote it, I guess the author is young enough to know everything.
I have observed that mainstream pundits such as on TV and in print give worse advice compared to advice on Reddit, blogs,and other non-mainstream sources. James Cramer, whose only usefulness is he draws huge ratings, has been costing his viewers millions over the past 15 years with terrible stock picks. Wall Street Bets got in early on Gsmestop, Palintir, Tsla, Amc, AMD and others, while the likes of Peter Schiff have been saying to buy gold forever which has lagged stocks.
The author is telling you how to make money. There is nothing immature about making money.
There is an interesting tangential public policy issue about how to limit societal damage from people taking advantage of others, but that is not the point of the article.
We're talking about the tone. The author's point is not entirely whacko: "hey plz stop using astrology to make investment decisions, it's stupid". But the tone of "hey look at how stupid Maren and all her 1MM followers are how does this even happen I thought the humans were more sophisticated than this, wow such crypto much stupid" is really kind of unpleasant.
But to your first point: how do you make money on crypto markets? I must have missed this nugget of wisdom in the author's rant.
Do we really have to be respectful of deliberate nonsense? It seems that only serves to validate that nonsense as worthy of serious debate... which it isn’t. This time policing serves only to help spread the ridiculous conspiracy theories, anti-science, and anti-reason.
Taking the high road has repeatedly failed in public discourse.
> ridiculous conspiracy theories, anti-science, and anti-reason
I am more humble than that.
It's not so much that I respect it out of awe or because I think it needs to be validated or is correct. It's that I disagree with such a hyper-rational conviction that there's no possible correlation between astrological events and human behavior (a market is entirely human behavior). Such conviction can be.. dangerous.
I do not believe a market is rational or scientific (they are certainly "efficient" though). I actually find those with a desire to approach such a human phenomenon scientifically to also fall in the anti-science anti-reason bucket, because they do not understand the limits of the scientific method or western rationalism.
When presented with a black-box market:
The scientific method can help you discover a model that answers the question, "how does the market work?".
Science cannot answer the question, "why does the market move?".
> But to your first point: how do you make money on crypto markets?
The author states this quite clearly. The way to make consistent legal returns off crypto is by selling snake oil to crypto speculators. "She’s leveraged her massive following into several lucrative revenue streams."
These stories used to be funny when it was about crap that just didn't work. They are becoming terrifying to be frank. Counting people in rooms for on-demand tickets, in-car purchasing of additional features, mandatory bio-metric monitoring of delivery driver behavior...
If your primary motivation is short-term monetary gain then you're right, it doesn't sound like a rational undertaking.
I can think of two reasons to work on open source. Altruism, you want to give back to the community without expecting a monetary gain in return. Investment in skills, if you want to differentiate yourself from peers, you'll have something to talk about to potential employers. It is a great opportunity to learn and become a better software engineer.
I've found being too attached to code is a recipe for frustration in the workplace. You code something elegant, simple, dare I say beautiful and inevitably it will be butchered by new product requirements, business needs, that quick hack to satisfy a client or more generally uncaring colleagues who are looking to get their job done as quickly as possible.
Perhaps romantic aspects could only be achieved when there are no third parties, just the programmer and their code. Working in or more importantly leading a team mandates a different approach by putting aside aesthetic considerations for more pragmatic ones that will satisfy all parties involved.
It's hard to be romantic in corporate environments.
If your code gets butchered it is not that great.
That's something I am slowly learning, and by slowly I mean in the scale of decades.
I've seen some of my old code I wrote in the workplace ten years ago, going through the hands of many developers of various skill levels and with different ideas, and then getting back to me. Needless to say, it is pretty ugly.
Analyzing that, I found the real good parts mostly untouched. The parts that I though were great when I wrote them and make me feel ashamed today usually didn't hold up. The most butchered parts tend to be of the overly abstract kind. Interestingly, some of the complicated and clever stuff that most people advise against did well. If it does the job well, people will keep it and put it to good use.
You can code romantically in the workplace. You just have to realize your code will be under attack and it has to be strong enough to defend itself. Weak code is not beautiful anyways, so in the end, all that adversity will help make your code better and more beautiful.
I agree with your points with a couple of caveats. I've written a lot of terrible code. For the good stuff it's usually not the existing lines of code or structure that are butchered rather the additions which do not follow the spirit of the original code. That ranges from trivialities such as code style of another developer or more serious issues of making a mess to fit a completely orthogonal new requirement, not utilizing existing functionality rather just doing similar things in different ways etc. In such cases a small refactor would suffice but that almost never happens due to time constraints.
On the topic of overly complex stuff not being touched, I find that's usually because no one understands it and hence others refrain from touching it lest it break.
I don't understand why you'd put the effort in when you can write it off as a job and pursue your "romances" in your personal life. I'd guess the return in satisfaction is greater unless you're already in love with your job in some way.
Very well worded. One thing I'll add -- some of the best code I've written has been the shortest and most plain, simple and obvious. Perhaps for the reasons you stated -- it makes it more likely to come through untouched over time.
> It's hard to be romantic in corporate environments.
I agree it's hard, but it's not impossible. One thing that heightens the experience for me is to:
Listen to movie scores while you program.
I first started this to help drown out other noises so I could concentrate. But, I soon realized that there's a lot of drama in the sound: there are highs and lows, chaos and order, fumbles and precision, brief pauses, slow times and fast -- the sound is just like programming!
One time, as the score was building my task was nearing completion. Just as I ran the program and saw that everything worked the movie score delivered a massive crescendo. It was so cathartic and I had never felt so much emotion while programming. I actually cried with joy. That's the closest thing I've felt to actual love while programming.
Amusingly, I pick those because they provide a bit of variety but not so much as to be distracting while working. Usually music with words in it gets me focused on what they are actually saying and thus unable to do work.
Yes! That's precisely how I got on to them too... I can't listen to music with vocals while programming. I like various sub genres of electronic music, but even a lot of pure electronic music is a little too jarring sometimes (some is not of course). But, without spending too much time curating, movie scores are almost always a safe choice.
I understand that. But it's interesting how this experience can be spiritual to some and others may be "purists" who find explicitly avoid extra toppings (listening to music during the task) just to be closer to the task (and thus intaking it in full, they could argue)
I guess it depends on what you consider pure. Without the music, I'm listening to kids (or coworkers) screaming or watching paw patrol in the background. Is that more pure than listening to a professionally arranged and conducted orchestra? Even with noise cancelling headphones, it's still not perfectly quiet, thus the movie score is a delightful way to drown out the additional background noise.
This reminded me of something that happened last week. I had written some code I found absolutely beautiful, then had to delete an hour later since the customer's requirements had changed. Personally, I find these situations disheartening but it's never frustrated me.
Every line of code that you write and can be proud of stays with you and adds up to your experience. You will produce more of it as you gain more experience.
> I've found being too attached to code is a recipe for frustration in the workplace.
Not sure why, but I've always viewed code as a means to an end of solving a larger problem. I end up attached to the end result, and not the code itself.
I suspect this is one of the reasons I don't get very passionate about language features. Something that makes my life easier is nice, but I'm not one to argue about them. I've solved problems in Visual Basic to C with everything in between.
haha yea, I try to sync my clothes to a RGB value that represents that day's mood. Sometimes I just type `cmatrix` and just sit back for a minute thinking about the problem I'm solving (should I use another class or inherit?)
Agree. After using gmail for many years it seemed like an unnecessary expense to pay for email.
Finally jumped to Fastmail 6 months ago and all I can say is I should have done it sooner. Weaning off the big boys and returning to being the customer, not the product, as they say. Feels good.
Absolutely correct. The actions of mainstream media have resulted in countless deaths, destruction and other barbarous acts committed as a result of fake news and propaganda. Yet they call for the censorship of others for deeds that pale in comparison.
Newsmedia positions themselves as the defenders of democracy but in reality they're just a business. And this idea that you need "the press" to tell you the truth is the result of very successful branding.
What's surprising to me is that people seem to think that the PsyOps stopped after the Iraq war.
That the Pentagon just decided "oh we're done with wars now, let's stop telling CNN/FOX/NYT what editorial content to push."
Anytime the mainstream media tries to drum up outrage I'm skeptical. That includes the narrative that Facebook/Twitter is the cause for social unrest and not the NYT/CNN/FOX.
The 2000s and were about manufacturing consent. The 2020s are about manufacturing outrage. You can say it's all about click-bait and getting eyeballs, but I'm skeptical this isn't the same people that started the Iraq war. They want civil unrest on purpose. People didn't want to live in a fascist society just because of Al Qaeda, so they needed a new enemy. So they tried to radicalize your gun-loving neighbor, dressed him up as QAnon Shaman, and now we have to live like 1984 because of him. It's absurd.
Sorry, but this comment betrays a lack of understanding about the very functioning of North American media.
There is no real world scenario in which they can be lumped as one group. Even individual outlets carry such a variety of voices that you cannot pin one on any given outlet.
The organizations that are lumped into the "MSM" branding opponents to a free press like to throw around are just large organizations.
Remember, "the medium is the message": you cannot extricate one article from the entirety of content published by a given outlet any more than you can exalt one article as being the sum of any outlet on its own. For example, a muffin recipe[0] is as much the New York Times as an opinion commentary on the potential problematic nature of social media, yet you cannot say that the NYT is only one or the other.
Because an outlet published an article that one might contend is responsible for a situation (rather than commentary on a situation), and that content has commonalities with content from other outlets does not mean there is any other practical association—only thematic.
Secondly, calling it all "fake news and propaganda" really belies any rational discussion of the subject... it's like saying all computers are killing machines because they've been used in war.
Just because the media has cooking articles doesn't mean it isn't propaganda.
At the time of the Iraq war everyone who cared to look into it knew the whole thing was absolutely fake news. If I knew it was fake, and all the people involved in the massive anti-war movement (in the UK at the time) knew it was fake then it wasn't much of a stretch for educated in the know journalists of the NY Times or other major media outlets to know. WMD, yellowcake, links to 9/11 etc. Completely fabricated propaganda was spread and promoted by the MSM.
Your issues with opinion columns from 15 to 20 years ago does not render the entire medium of 21st century journalism "fake news".
I'm certain if you read the entirety of the New York Times (and many other outlets) published articles on the subject you would find a range of perspectives, not just the ones that you're purporting sum up journalism of the past 20 years.
I was reading the same outlets you were at that time. Those large outlets based in the cities were where I (living in rural SW Ontario) gained my understanding of what was going on with the United States response to 9/11.
I'm not making this up. They maintain well-organized archives and it's easy to search, filter by date range, section, and sort. For example, "Bush WMD" search between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2011 returns a wide variety of perspectives and types of journalism: some straight reporting of the news, some press releases, and some opinion columns from varying perspectives—some in line with what you're claiming is the entire stance of North American media, and some not. Those sections are not all equal in their "truthiness" (another fun term from those times, if you recall).
> Those sections are not all equal in their "truthiness"
So why are low-truthiness sections like 'opinion pieces' and 'commentaries' published? Well they're cheap, but also because someone's pushing a particular agenda, or agendas.
So how's that different from someone spouting outrage-wrapped half-truths on social media?
Opinion columns are a curated forum of ideas, including agendas, sure.
But the publishing of them does not represent them as being anything of any validity any more than publishing "letters to the editor" asserts the opinions therein are of any practical value other than the exposure to the fact that they are indeed held. It's an attempt to hold an even remotely civilized, and detached discussion at length.
No single opinion column is a conclusion, except maybe that of the writer's. That's why you'll see debates go on for extended periods of time-columns and papers written back and forth on singular ideas sometimes for years, decades even.
But I'm not here to defend opinion columns—I rarely read them myself outside of a few more local polemics. I was discussing the dishonest treatment of an "MSM" that is only "fake news" and "propaganda" because of a misreading and lack of media literacy in general. (If only many people who frequented forums like Parler treated those discussions with as much deference rather than planting bombs and bludgeoning a federal officer to death)
I haven't claimed that all content published by MSM is fake news or even the majority.
A war was initiated under false pretenses, published by these organizations. Everyone knew it was fake and a charade and they published it anyway.
This is a question of pot calling the kettle black. And in this case (against Facebook or in other cases Parler) the harm caused by MSM is far far greater than any conspiracy theory on social media.
If you want to discuss my comment in other terms, I'd be happy to. However, I only aimed to be as clear as possible—using the correct words is part of that. A great deal of the vitriol that tends to bubble up in discussions about sensitive subjects seems to come from misunderstandings—accurate language is one of the few ways we can try to prevent such misunderstandings.
This isn’t so much a counter-argument as it’s a disjointed muddy-the-waters statement. Muffin recipes...?
Of course a paragraph-long comment won’t provide a rigorous critique of the media. And I might disagree with that commenter with regards to “fake news”, since you can go a long way without outright lying (omission being one tactic). In any case, there are long-form critiques of this phenomena if one is interested. And they’re not crackpot theories.
I wasn't responding to long form critique. I was responding to several disjointed, self-righteous platitudes strung together.
Not to single out the commenter above, as it's a common phenomenon.
There was nothing muddying about my comment. If someone has an issue to take up with a particular writer and their treatment of a subject in an opinion column that is one thing, but that's not what was happening. What I was pointing out and opposing is the treatment of "MSM" as "fake news" and "propaganda"[0] as a whole. So, unless recipes, arts columns, news reporting, and travel writing are also all "fake news", the NYT is not "fake news".
Media literacy always has been of severe importance, and it really begins with a base level literacy and handling of the language and context the writing comes from. Picking out a couple of opinion columns and using them to brand an entire field of work and study as "fake news" is problematic.
Frankly, the problem seems to stem with many people misreading Orwell (or not at all before raising his name as a moral objection), and not even taking a moment to read that they're browsing the opinion section before they've decided to take off with outrage.
I never argued with their opinions. I countered their understanding of the functioning of North American media with illustrations.
[0] When this word is pegged in next to "fake news", one tends to understand, given the context, that the meaning was idiomatic in the anti-journalism sense and not the larger meaning of the word.
>"11:59" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. The episode originally aired on February 9, 2000 as the 11th episode of the sixth season.