The best memories I have as a child are 'inappropriate' books (especially 'when I was five I killed myself' at ~12yo and 1984 at ~14.). I always had issues (disliked being touched, difficulties to empathize), but those books emotionally shook me, moved me so much, so hard I like to think I became a better version of me after reading them.
Started doing theater at 12 after Buten, started working as after school counselor for 6 to 8 yo kids and help them do their homework after reading 1984, ultimately becoming a youth camp counsellor at 17. Which were terribly outside my comfort zone, but Buten showed me how to improve myself, and Orwell how to improve the world (or at least try my best).
I personally wouldn’t choose 1984 for a 14 year old, but would consider it rather tame compared to modern fiction. Some of it would make the grocery store check out isle romance novels blush but also don’t contain any profound message.
Exactly what happened in a PR from a few months ago, from the beginning it felt wrong, pytest was moved from the dev group to the main import section. Then imported in our models. To add ignores everywhere.
Ok, in my country, you actually get your license removed and jail time if you kill someone (usually 2 years, up to 10 if you're drinking).
Let's say Tesla kill 50% less than a human driver, I'd agree to give Tesla's board 50% of the sentence for each person autopilot kills. As an incentive to make the cars kill less.
Let's reformulate it as a railroad problem. In the proposed hypothetical, if you effectively ban self driving cars until they're literally flawless, 50 people per day will be killed by human drivers every day. If you pull the lever and allow imperfect-but-better-than-human self-driving, 25 people per day will be killed by by autonomous vehicles.
As a reference point, non-suicide gun-related deaths total ~45 people per day.
What moral principle could possibly justify not pulling the lever?
But, even as everyone talk about morality as an ideal, no one really cares about it (else the world would be very, very different). What most people care about is feeling that things are 'fair', at least the appearance of fairness. I guarantee you that if a company accepts that it's board (or executives) get jailed if their car makes a mistake that kills someone, like any random driver, people will accept it.
I quit paris to work on the coast to sail at least every two weekends (and took up foiling for the evenings), I'd say I now need way, way less vacations than I used to.
> you blame the US for Vietnam (instead of the french)
I'm all for saying french caused a lot of death and destruction, but the Vietnam war was clearly created by the US during the 1954 Geneva Conference. Also, US-British involvement in France politics during the Indochina war (under Truman: Roosevelt didn't had to deal with Dixiecrats and give racist idiots a new enemy) probably made the 'sale guerre' last way longer that it had to.
My view is that France tried to hold on to Indochina unjustifiably for almost a decade after WW2.
So they get the blame because the US could have hardly escalated a proxy war without proxies.
Not saying America is blameless though, but I do blame France for setting the whole thing up basically (split Vietnam), and for all the wrong reasons, too.
You ought to remember that 40% of french voted communist in 48. Without heavy involvement of CIA and MI6 to curb the movements (including assassinations), the sentiment would probably have grow, which would have stopped the war (also, now that I think about it, it also means that the soviet are even biggest culprits on this as they did kill more french leftist in 5 years than everyone else combined). The more centrist government also would have tried to get out by 49 without the heavy British investment, and later USA support. And during the peace deal in 54, the milk toast also known as Mendes France accepted a first peace deal that the US then refused, and the division of Vietnam was probably US decision too.
They are probably older physiotherapists, or you have particular issues that requires it (parastesias, displaced muscles or ligaments, dropping organs). Modern physiotherapy tries to limit body manipulation to a minimum and will always prefer to give you exercises if possible (sources: 5 of my cousins are physiotherapists, those who couldn't become doctor mostly)
The issue with the "i'm just asking questions" is that it is overused by disingenuous (i started writing nefarious but i think you can be nefarious but mean good, whereas people who do this _always_ mean to trick other humans) people. So nowadays, if you want to go ask a question to go further on a topic because you're interested in it, you need to add a preamble that explain. See:
"How did ancient egyptian managed to cut rock that cleanly without modern tools?"
vs
"I'm very interested in old tools and techniques, do any of you have resources about how Egyptian used to cut granite?"
Sadly, this is the state of the internet, because some people can't be genuine (probably think it's a weakness or something dumb), now everybody assume the worst of everybody else.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it really applies to a question asking for the veracity of a previously stated claim, especially when the claim is actually false. I think there is more than enough bad things the government actually does wrt immigration enforcement, we don't need to start making things up.
In that case, it vastly more productive to say : 'I do believe this is false/poorly presented/a gross generalisation, and would like you to prove me wrong by citing sources'. At least you do not hide behind the "I'm just asking questions", which read as disingenuous like I said, mostly because it's overused rethoric.
a cursory view of whataboutism's... i mean whimsicalism's comment stream has the effect of negating any declarations of serious intent. This is standard practice, take issue with a valid if overstated perspective on a technicality, insist that the current state of the market and technology is acting as it should, and that continued disregard for the abuses/negative outcomes/deteriorating conditions will be solved by further application of the current techniques.
The downvotes are perhaps the intended outcome. I might say that I didn't know this when i first responded, but that would be untrue.
I engaged in exactly that manner, fully informed of the observable tendencies for engagement. There's no need to try and advise an account as if this 'just asking questions' was a misstep. There is ample substance showing that this account repeatedly declines to take the HN recommended approaches to polite interaction.
i think this is an isolated demand for rigor, my way of approaching it was fine, and it is only due to the political valence of the comment i'm replying to that i got downvoted and flagged. take care
To me, the divide Twitter/Bluesky is the divide between terminally only idiots and terminally online simpletons (you decide which is which). Decent people are on neither.
I don't know how HN has remained as chill as it has compared to other social media platforms, but I'm grateful. I can still have deep conversations here without people losing their minds and yelling expletives and death threats. It feels a lot like forums or Reddit back in the 2000s.
I think people on this website have a way, way to high opinion of themselves. Barring a few exceptions, we are middling developers, or way worse than this. Just read the comments from a year or twoon how chatgpt4.5 is the best at coding or how Claude sonnet 4 is better than a lot of Devs... At least I don't have imposter syndrome anymore.
Started doing theater at 12 after Buten, started working as after school counselor for 6 to 8 yo kids and help them do their homework after reading 1984, ultimately becoming a youth camp counsellor at 17. Which were terribly outside my comfort zone, but Buten showed me how to improve myself, and Orwell how to improve the world (or at least try my best).
reply