Vigilantism and lone wolf actions seem to be what's left.
Between the attempted assassination of Trump this past election cycle, and the successful assassination of the United Healthcare CEO, those in power have to contend with the unpredictability and impossible to monitor thoughts and behaviors that have now been entirely internalized (through their own actions).
Not quite - "everything is a blob" has very different concurrency semantics to "everything is a POSIX file". You can't write into the middle of a blob, for example. This makes certain use cases harder but the concurrency of blobs is much easier to reason about and get right.
Personally I think you might actually need a DB to do the work of a DB, and you can't as easily build one on top of a blob store as on a block device. But I do think most distributed systems should use blob and/or DB and not the filesystem.
There isn't, because human trust can barely scale past 100 people, much less the entire internet. I think humans will recede into the tribes we were always built to understand and be a part of. Private group chats are far more popular and ubiquitous than we give them credit for, and I only see that accelerating in this climate.
"Echo chambers" have been the default for almost all of human civilization right up until about 10-20 years ago. You communicated with your immediate circle of friends and coworkers rather than arguing politics with LLM bots on Twitter.
No, this is different. A local bubble populated with a normal-ish distribution of people is different from a distributed bubble populated with people who became grouped either voluntarily or algorithmically.
At some level there is always a private mode. Think family and friends. Do you not have any issue with everything being public? I think the parent suggests we’re not made for very large groups and I kind of agree. I can’t name 100 people I know or known in my life. Maybe I can (barely) but with great effort.
Its not a coincidence that the printing press brought devastating war to europe in the form of the wars of reformation [1] .
The internet is another real tool for knocking down fences for free, by anyone. Its only a matter of time when there's pushback by angry fence-owners.
We absolutely need less friction and more of minding our own business and focusing on our own back yard instead of chiming in on someone thousands of miles away.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for the free flow of information, but what people (HN crowd?) don't understand is that a significant subgroup of humans cannot tolerate relentless change or challenges to their worldview for too long.
The fact that you made a throwaway in order to make a personal attack rather than substantively engage with the point indicates that you don't actually have a good argument against it.
Im not sure all private chat groups are really private. Maybe some are but can’t help thinking the industry isn’t at least running AI on private chats and summarize what people are talking about.
Avoid talking about any and all things you deem uncomfortable and strange. Reject the identity and existence of millions of people until it's "appropriate".
Maybe we should ship all transgender people to a reservation so that children don't interact with them until it's age appropriate? It's so simple!
Honestly sometimes I wish they could ship us all off to somewhere else so we don't have to deal with transphobes anymore. Just somewhere remote with good internet where we can all live in peace
Sex is all religious fundamentalists can wrap their heads around, because their small, rigid, hetero-normative worldview cannot condone or understand the spectrum of unique beauty that is gender identity.
The structure and forms of communication kids have at their fingertips these days provides plenty of ways to explore these topics, unfortunately mixed in with low quality or possibly dangerous content.
I think those who push back hard against these topics are accelerating a counter-reaction, and I'm here for it. This is a weird thing to obsess against.
I am not at all a religious fundamentalist. Actually an atheist, and I am all support for people being whatever they want to be. It's your life, it is your right to be happy the way you want to be, gender identity and all.
But I really don't want that being pushed into my daughter at a young age, not until she can mount her own idea of what she is. Much in the same way I don't want religion being pushed into her from a young age, not until she can have an idea of how she views the world.
Yes, of course. But some things requires being practical. The girl has to be dressed. She needs her hair combed and styled. I buy her toys.
And yes, it is all very cute and girly. But she is also still a baby, and the wife would hang me by the balls if I bought our baby daughter boy's clothes.
Not that I would anyway. It melts my heart seeing her in her tiny little dresses, with cute headbands and all.
The practical part is that this is the societal default. And while she is a child there will be many benefits in just following that. As I said, she will have space to explore themes of sexuality and gender once her age is more suitable. Until then, she is the little princess.
That's the challenge being presented, why isn't the societal default to call a child "They" until they identify with a particular pronoun? Have you asked them if they like dresses over pants? Do they like trains over dolls?
I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife. They might go through a phase where they prefer being called or boy, or an ostrich, or reject every label, and it doesn't have to be a crisis, it's just a normal part of growing up.
> That's the challenge being presented, why isn't the societal default to call a child "They" until they identify with a particular pronoun?
I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow. What I can tell is that challenging the rules come at a price. I don't want to impose that price on my daughter. If she wants to challenge societal rules (against my advice) when she is old enough to do so, she will have my support.
> Have you asked them if they like dresses over pants? Do they like trains over dolls?
Asking her things now is foolish. She is only months old.
If she prefers playing with cars and trains rather than dolls, I will buy her cars and trains.
To be frank, I think all those are lame. I will try to nudge her into liking puzzles, board games, painting, that sort of stuff. And later on videogames. I dream of the day she will be old enough to play Mario Kart with me and beat me.
> I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife
I agree, but that will be at an age when she can meaningfully build her own idea of self. Right now she cries when her nappies are dirty, and likes when I make her sleep walking arond the bedroom holding her against my chest. I don't think she can mount an intellectual defense about her own gender identity, or about religion, or any such complex subjects.
Yeah I will admit that considering you have a daughter literally a month old, they can't yet express their individuality and separateness from others, but I think you should be prepared for these challenging questions far more early on than you'd expect.
Many parents aren't assigning a gender at birth. Many have same-sex parents. Many parents are hateful, and have kids who they've taught their hatred towards. "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children. There's consequences to following the rules as much as breaking them (if they are even rules to begin with).
> I think you should be prepared for these challenging questions far more early on than you'd expect.
Maybe. I have no idea what her interests and desires will be, nor do I control them. I can at best try to nudge them in certain directions, and offer what little guidance and support I can when the time comes.
What I can say in the subject of sexuality and gender, is that it was something I was completely uninterested in until I was closer to puberty. My peers were pretty much the same. I have the impression that younger generations are dealing with it much earlier. I am not sure if this is healthy. I tend to think it is not.
> "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children.
One of my main challenges is guiding my daughter on how to navigate a world that at best is uninterested in her happiness and well being, and at worst is outright malevolent.
Part of this challenge is teaching her that society has many expectations of her, and choosing what mountains to climb and what hills to die on is something that is part of life.
Since sexuality and gender are very touchy subjects, I can give many other examples. She is expected to go through school, no matter if she wants to. When she is older she is expected to have skills that are of use in a system of work and bosses that you have to adhere to in order to have a functional life. I can go on and on about the very many things that are imposed on everyone by a careless, harsh, and unfair world.
Not following rules is typically a luxury of the elites. While I am thankfully much more affluent than my parents were, we are far from rich.
Is the ability for your daughter to read about gender identity and sexual orientation pushing it on her? The bans are targeting books that even have characters in them that are non-standard, not only books that are telling your child to become trans and gay (Are there even any books that are doing that? I've never seen any)
> Is the ability for your daughter to read about gender identity and sexual orientation pushing it on her?
Yes. That is the literal definition of having information pushed on to her.
The ideas contained within whatever book would not pop up on her mind out of thin air, they would be contained in the text. As a father, who is responsible for her health, well-being, education, happiness and future, I want her to occupy her mind with things more suitable for a child.
I won't give her the Bible for the same reason.
> The bans are targeting books that even have characters in them that are non-standard, not only books that are telling your child to become trans and gay (Are there even any books that are doing that? I've never seen any)
I don't know. And honestly, I don't care. She has the world to explore at her young age, and there is so much more in the universe. I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage, when her body and mind are more suited to such things. If at that point she wants to be whatever, she will have my support. I want her happiness after all.
> The ideas contained within whatever book would not pop up on her mind out of thin air
You say that as if your child won't hear about these topics from their peers. Some of whom will have lesbian or gay parents. Some of whom will be trans. All you're doing is making your child work off hearsay instead of accurate information.
> I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage
Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing. The proof for that is very simple: Exposing a girl to a boy doesn't make her a boy. Exposing a child to a heterosexual relationship doesn't make them heterosexual.
Instead, exposing children to drag queens and gays and lesbians and asexuals and trans individuals means that there's a the greater the chance they will choose to continue to live if they are something other than a CIS gendered girl attracted to boys. It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
> I want her happiness after all.
Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
> You say that as if your child won't hear about these topics from their peers. Some of whom will have lesbian or gay parents. Some of whom will be trans. All you're doing is making your child work off hearsay instead of accurate information.
Yes. She will likely hear about God from peers with religious parents. Are you suggesting I teach her the Bible so she gets "accurate information"?
Part of my job as a father is helping her develop her intellectual stance on "hearsay".
> Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Because as a father I have to make choices on her behalf, with her well being in mind. And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
> Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing.
Absolutely, she will be gradually exposed to many things and situations as she grows. All things in due time.
> It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
There will, unavoidably, come a time when she will come to understand her own sexuality, how she views her body, etc and so forth. Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included. She will have my full support no matter her choices. Until then my role is to help her develop the best way I can.
> Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
> Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her, much less what pronoums I use to refer to her in the third person. Your sarcastic quotation marks do very little to support your rationale.
And I made it clear what I mean by "old enough". Some subjects are complex, and demand a certain level of maturity to be properly tackled.
> Part of my job as a father is helping her develop her intellectual stance on "hearsay".
And what stance will you set with them to avoid discussing sexual orientation (or religion) when they report that their friend Austin has two moms? Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
> And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
> Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included.
Gender identity in particular has nothing to do with physical sexual maturity. It happens much earlier in life. And putting off any talks about gender identity until puberty starts means that the child in question will have changes forced upon their body that they may not want to live with at that point in time, even if they chose to remain their gender assigned to them at birth.
General preferences in attraction also start to manifest much earlier than 13; I remember knowing that I liked girls back in first grade.
> It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
> Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her[...]
My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
Thankfully, your child is young enough that you have time to think about it.
> when they report that their friend Austin has two moms?
Depends on what kind of child she is, and how old she is, I think.
A dismissive reply of the sorts of "Yeah, some children have two moms. It is unusual, but it happens" is a likely answer. No reasom to make a fuss about it. If children are picking on the Austin kid for having lesbian moms, I'll try to teach her to be polite to the kid.
Children can be cruel sometimes. I know I used to be.
> Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
That one I have been debating myself how to address. Not specifically about some religious parent on a screed about gay people going to hell, but how to explain to her in simple terms that God, Hell, and so on are fictional ideas, allegories to try to explain the world, in a way that a child can understand, that is.
> Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
Yes, absolutely.
> What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Depends. My father started to teach me some simple math concepts when I was around 3 or 4. I already could do simple addition and subtraction when I started school, for example.
I plan to nudge her with those concepts when it comes time to play with her, but she has to show interest too. Forcing does nothing good.
> Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
I fundamentally disagree with basically everything written there. At a too young age she will be ill-equiped to understand the consequences of her choices, both at a personal level and at a social level.
> My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
I can only do my best, to the best of my judgement. As she gradually grows and builds her own interests and desires, my plan is to be a sort of guide, helping her navigate a complex (and sometimes malevolent) world.
I can at most nudge her in some directions, but ultimately I can't really force anything.
When I was under 12 I was completely unprepared and incapable to handling this kind of information. My concerns were playing videogames, watching cartoons, and playing soccer. I didn't think at all about sexuality, much less gender anything.
I have no idea what kind of damage to my idea of self this kind of information being pushed onto me would have caused, especially when at that time I was the bullied kid for being short and nerdy, girls especially would always mock me for that reason. Maybe it would have caused none. I always saw school as lame, I did the bare minimum and always had good grades. Maybe it would have been a class that I just didn't pay any attention to.
It was a different time back then though. The Internet only became a thing when I was already 13, and at that point things had changed quite a bit for me.
Kids these days seem to be exposed to some... er... "objectionable" material a lot earlier. Now that I am a father, I do worry about what kind of information my daughter will receive once she grows up and goes to school. Not sure how people deal with this sort of stuff nowadays.
We all have our own individual experience when we pass into adulthood, but keep in mind there was a time that being a "nerd" was far less socially acceptable to your parents growing up than when you were growing up.
When I was a kid, a parent on the radio said this about gay marriage: "I am the gatekeeper for what is socially acceptable for my child."
I asked my Dad about that statement, and he said pretty clearly "That's an unrealistic expectation of what parenthood is. You're more of a bodyguard or secret service. You can listen and provide context, do your best to stop your child from being put into danger, but you cannot stop, control or manage a child's, much less a teenagers, world experience."
I grew up in the 80s and 90s for that matter. Being a nerd was being an outcast. Not socially acceptable at all. I find it ironic (and in many ways disgraceful) that being a nerd became sort of mainstream.
Back in the day a parent was absolutely the gatekeeper of what was socially acceptable to a child. Nowadays, probably less so.
Teenagers were always uncontrollable. Try to control them and they will defy you. I know I did, and essentially every other teenager I came in contact with.
I think you're viewing your parents experience of gatekeeper through their own perceptions and biases. You're an atheist, and I assume a first generation atheist, what was your path towards that belief if they really had that level of control over your lived experience, worldview, and knowledge?
> You're an atheist, and I assume a first generation atheist, what was your path towards that belief if they really had that level of control over your lived experience, worldview, and knowledge?
I became an atheist when I was a teenager. Before that the idea of religion was just something taught to me by my parents. I was taught to pray and that there was a God above, and all that. (It was actually a bit more complicated than that, as my parents had different religions each).
I was, however, given the freedom to explore my own ideas about religion and to develop my own views about the world once I was a little older. Honestly, I think they handled it all quite well.
For that matter, if my daughter decides to be religious once she grows up a little, she will also have my support.
My way to view this is that while she is a baby and later a small girl I am fully responsible for her. As she grows up, the more I will be on the background, and her own ideas will take the center stage instead. As I usually say "I'll teach her everything I can, she will learn everything she wants".
reply