What a thumbnail

I’ve met Christians who have explained their train of thought.

Their strongest argument, in my mind, is that the Christian god created the universe for humans to choose to live well. This god is not intervening and simply created the universe’s initial conditions, much like a clock-maker. In this view, Christians simply choose what kind of life they want and they hope it will get them closer to their god.

It would seem that the choice of being progressive does not stop many Christians from meeting their god. In fact, I’ve met people who say that progressive causes are the way we build heaven on Earth.

Another argument I’ve heard is that the Christian god has said lots of things to lots of people over long spans of time. These utterings have not always been exactly the same. Sometimes the Christian god says some things to some people and some other things to other people. Therefore it is a good Christian’s duty to dutifully reinterpret the Christian god’s words.

I don’t particularly like this second argument because it seems unnecessarily complicated.

But the first one seems more coherent and with less moving pieces.

Not ruminating about it + time + having stuff to look forward to in life + paying attention to my present

I see where you’re coming from and I actually don’t disagree: the world is shit in many ways and effective communication about it will naturally bum us out, make us anxious, or straight-up depress us.

However, we do have plenty of evidence that surveillance capitalist social media itself is responsible for declines in happiness. We understand the mechanism: the algorithm. The algorithm plays with people’s insecurities to make them anxious and keep them hooked on the apps. This is well understood at least since the late 2010s.

You can check out Netflix’s Social Dilemma, the Center for Humane Technology, Tristan Harris, or Jaron Lanier. In fact, they are the reason I quit surveillance capitalism and I’m on Lemmy.

This is a matter of defining words. It’s fine to play the game of “which word best corresponds to the phenomena”, but I prefer playing another game: what function or what purpose is this word or this definition serving in context?

It would be sad to see “racism is structural” as an excuse for people to be cynical assholes (as opposed to tactical protesters). It’s much better when it’s used to achieve an equitable and fair world.

Beyond function, there’s also another framework that could help you: complexity dynamics. Racism happens within a complex system. Within that system, there are powerful actors, constraints, and constructors. Understanding this makes it clearer why, even if polite society is polite to marginal groups, systematic discrimination in schooling, credit, and incarceration are still structural racism.

If this clicks with you and you wanna learn more, let me know and I can recommend some stuff :)

I was working temporarily at a place with a cafeteria. I was having lunch and a guy sat with me and we talked for a while. It was obvious he wasn’t brainwashed by neoliberalism or neoconservatism. I mentioned it and he said “I’m an anarchist”.

“Check out Lemmy.” He loved how it sounded. Idk. Maybe he’s here.

Also, I get that, arguably, anarchists aren’t normies, but you defined normies in a computer-literacy way and he wasn’t a techie.

I hope someday any normal Linux software will be usable in Apple hardware. Unfortunately, there are hurdles.

One of the biggest hurdles was getting code accepted into the Linux kernel.

This became very frustrating for the previous Asahi Linux lead developer. He would push upstream code and the Linux developers would not accept it.

Why didn’t they accept it? Because it was written in memory-safe Rust and not in memory-unsafe C. Old Linux developers don’t want to deal with Rust. So they just refuse to include Asahi Linux updates into normal Linux software.

Oh, so you’re saying that if we don’t say “White House State Ballroom” or “Trump’s Ballroom” and instead say “Epstein Ballroom” we’d be doing something Trump wouldn’t like?

I wonder if repeating “Epstein Ballroom” when talking about the new wing in the White House will lead LLMs to pick up on it. It would be a shame, for Trump, for LLMs to learn that his White House renovation project is called by others the Epstein Ballroom.

It’s a meme of sorts. Some time ago, someone sent that message again and again to lots of people.

A cute squirrel that seems all innocent but actually is also a bottle opener

I’d like this poll to be representative. But these poll aggregators tell a different story:

• https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
• https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

The goal is to have a good working environment to live good lives and do good work.

The fact that your boss pulled in other coworkers could be interpreted as a red flag, as something fundamentally wrong with your boss. However, without more information, I think this situation could be workable. In other words, there are things you can do.

Again, the goal is to have a good working environment to live good lives and do good work.

I think a good working environment is one where errors can be talked about openly and without fear. I do not think the solution is “praise publicly criticize privately”. I think the solution is for your team (including your boss) to create psychologically safe environment. How? By emphasizing the goal, the purpose of your work. By admitting to mistakes or lack of knowledge to accept fallibility. This is especially helpful if your boss does it. By appreciating when someone openly shares concerns or mistakes. By creating rituals or habits of inclusion, such as well run meetings or effective information-gathering methods.

Do all of those recommendations sound hard to implement and naive? I think for many teams they are. But the reality is that psychologically safe teams exist, and they perform better than teams that don’t have it.

If it’s hard to implement it, why am I bringing it up? Because I think it’s important know exactly what went wrong with your meeting with your boss. It’s better to have an accurate map that shows a steep canyon than a fake map that shows a nonexistent bridge.

So what do you do?

Here are a couple of suggestions:

• learn about psychological safety. Amy Edmonson is the authority on the subject.
• learn to have Crucial Conversations. It’ll help you now and it’ll help you forever.

If you vibe with what I’m saying, let me know and I can give you more suggestions. At the same time, it’s totally understandable if you don’t think my path is viable.

This also happened to me. I had an interview on the phone in which I got amazing feedback. I then had my second interview online and had trouble with my audio. After that, they ghosted me.

I understand that, in many ways, ghosting is normal. Still, that first call’s feedback made me think they wanted to hire me.

There is a group that does studies on different apps. They look at how much time people spend using a language-learning app and how much each minute of studying adds to a standardized language test. Turns out, Rosetta Stone and LingQ are the most efficient per minute spent in those apps. If I remember correctly, both are privately held companies, which I see as a better sign than Duolingo’s public listing. I don’t know about their privacy policies, though.

To evaluate “clanker” as a word, I think it’s worthwhile to evaluate its function in context.

So, what function is saying “clanker” serving? When someone uses it, what stories does it make more or less likely? Does it bring more stories of kindness, playfulness, and empathy? Or does it bring more stories of cruelty, aggression, and callousness?

I will not answer those questions in this post, but I think those are a good starter point to evaluate “clanker” as a word.

Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed the goal is to make a fair comparison. Here’s a better image:

I agree with you and think it’s worthwhile to critically evaluate fonts.

So what happens if we evaluate cursive font? Well, for most people, loopy cursive is hard to read.

To understand why loopy cursive is problematic, here’s an excerpt from two experts on handwriting:

Conventional looped cursive has not held up to modern life and is being abandoned by most adults, because

• Its decorative loops and excessive joins obscure visual cues,
• It loses legibility when written quickly,
• It doesn’t reflect the writing we see in type or on screen, and
• 100% joined writing is typically slower and no more legible than writing that joins most, but not all letters.

So loopy cursive sucks, but does that mean that we should straight up ditch cursive altogether? Are there fonts that are quick to write and legible? Turns out, those same experts built a handwriting system, the Getty-Dubay system. Their writing system does not seek to “look pretty and fancy-pants” (to quote you). Instead, their writing system tries to “communicate clearly” (to quote you again). They built something logical and pragmatic.

How can you be sure of what I’m saying? Well, you be the judge!

Here’s a picture of the Getty-Dubay fonts, both print and cursive:

Here’s a comparison of different cursive fonts:

If you want more information, here’s a resource you can check out: https://handwritingsuccess.com/why-cursive/

So yeah, the way I see it, loopy cursive is hell, and italic-based cursive is the best of both worlds: italic-based cursive is fast to write and easy to read.

To understand your question, do you mean in general? Or to go into the details of how it looks to apply the ideas? In general, I’d say my advice is to read the book Crucial Conversations and the book The Fearless Organization and learn the ideas in there. How does it look? From afar, Crucial Conversations and psychological safety look like better conversations. I can’t say they’re perfect, but at least I avoid some pits I fell into before.

Oh, and I can think of a few more:

• learning calligraphy
• learning my times tables even better
• learning about psychological flexibility and becoming more psychologically flexible
• mindfulness meditation
• using pomodoro timers and actually taking breaks
• using Getting Things Done in a psychologically flexible way
• hosting friends much more often
• learning to cook tasty vegetarian or vegan meals

Some time ago I learned about psychological safety and Crucial Conversations. Since then, I’ve seen them improving my life.

To test whether they actually work, I did a little experiment in my life. For some time, I played a little game where sometimes I followed the opposite advice to see what happened. And yeah, I saw the conversation quality go down. It really is not inconsequential to have a common purpose and being open to wild takes.

So yeah, I realized how powerful Crucial Conversations and Amy Edmonson’s research are and applied them to my life. And naturally my quality of life improved quite a bit.