My father has had both hips replaced in the fast few years. Both surgeries were very successful and he has retained full hip joint function. He no longer has pain in his hips.
His surgeon used an approach that minimised damage to the muscles in the area. If I recall correctly, this meant he gain access to the hip joint via the posterior side of dad's upper leg, and went between muscle and tendon, rather than needing to cut muscle to get to the joint.
I don't know if I'm remembering correctly, but dad healed up pretty quickly.
I used to roll BJJ with a 50-ish year old man. As a teenager he suffered a debilitating car crash and hip replacement at the time, resulting in his having a cane until his second replacement circa 2020. This allowed him to walk cane free and practice marital arts.
The technology is there for hip replacements, it would seem.
as i said, hip replacement normally works very well. my 80+ mother had two after two bad falls, both worked really well physically, but she went off the rails mentally after the second. apparently there is a theory (sorry, can't find link) that doing surgery like replacements releases a lot of fat into the bloodstream that can drive you nuts. that seems to be what happened to my mum.
i don't suggest anyone should not get a replacement based on my non-medic and probably wrong information.
>Postoperative Delirium and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients with Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of the Literature
Malthusian nonsense. As societies develop and become richer, birth rates drop.
Also, over time, our ability to produce more food has always risen to the challenge.
No one needs religion to lead a moral life. That's not the argument.
But without the transcendent, without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morality. Everything becomes subjective and "post-modern".
Actions then become "justifiable" - if there is such a thing - by whatever criteria suits us: the greater good, the good of the nation, whatever.
But essentially self-interest takes over completely.
The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become.
> But essentially self-interest takes over completely.
Orrrrrrrr... maybe... it doesn't? Maybe even when we're all alone and have to figure things out for ourselves we can come to understand ourselves in genuine relation to those around us and discover a kind and empathetic morality built from logical first principles? Even without the fear of the judgement of almighty sky daddy?
Humans are nothing if not self interested. But that's beside the point here.
Why "kind and empathetic"? Who said that's how we should be?
If we are nothing more than an arbitrary arrangement of matter, formed according to arbitrary laws of physics, and only for a relative moment, then what is "kind" and "empathetic"?
In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. The only sound position you can then take is that there is no such thing as morality.
> In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock.
Can you think of anything in between? Why the extreme jump to “it’s either all or nothing”?
To state that The Only way to not be a meaningless hunk of rock is to worship your god seems like a pretty big lack of imagination.
I don’t need your god or your god’s rules to appreciate that you’re probably an amazing person in many ways. My partner is “godless” and she’s far more amazing than a rock.
If you want to argue that certain people need religion and that it may provide more benefit to society when those people personally worship their god I can see how this may be a sound argument. Some people really do need jesus, but this hardly means everyone needs jesus or some other sky god to see the value of other people.
This is such a good example of why I push back on organized religions and their foot soldier bible thumpers… this all or nothing thing. I don’t want your god, I don’t want your religious prudery. I thinks it’s amazing that you find meaning there, i really genuinely do. But it isn’t for me. No. I don’t want your god. I still see your value and still care—and, honestly it’s not a wild impossibility that I see value in others and that I do this without a god.
People feel good when they help others and feel bad when they get scolded by their peers. That is our inner moral compass and is the core to all morals even religious ones. Religion doesn't make it better, at best it is as good. Humans are pack animals, we put in a lot of effort to help the pack.
This is the way it ought to work, but often does not. Or, when your peer group associates criminal or antisocial behavior with positive attributes.
Shaming does not work in a large population of antisocial people. Religion is not THE answer however for a large population of people it is necessary (currently).
What I'm trying to get across is that a sense of morality is with us all. We have a generally shared understand of goodness, justice, etc. My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe.
"People feel good when they help ...".
No argument. But is morality just about the feels? No, it isn't.
> My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe.
You say that, and it's good that you did because the arguments you're making don't work together to prove your point in the way that you think they do. What about a godless universe makes morality impossible to justify? Is it that god is the only possible source of morality or meaning or value or something? Because you haven't proven that and can't just take it as axiom.
In order for morality to have any worth at all, it has to be an intrinsic truth (or rational determination) separate from god anyway. If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human?
Now, if one believes in a creator that is many orders of magnitude (or infinitely) more intelligent than a human, sure, saying that they probably have a better insight into morality and we should listen to them makes sense. But it would be because of their greater ability to understand what is moral, not them being the law maker of morality.
>If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human?
Well, because the god can stick you in a fire for all eternity if you follow the human's moral code instead. That's not really a great case for the soundness of their moral teachings but nonetheless presents a compelling argument for obedience.
In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock.
That's a rough approximation of my beliefs. The universe is massive and long-lived. I am neither.
I want to leave the world a better place than when I entered it. That trickles down to my daily life - are things better or worse when I go to bed than when I awoke? Being as insignificant as a rock doesn't preclude that desire.
And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad.
"And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad."
The moral argument isn't telling you that. You people (HN readers) seem intent on misunderstanding my initial statements.
It's not that atheists are not moral. Not even less moral than religious people.
The point I am trying, and failing, to express is that morality must come from a higher, non-human source. If it does not, then it is just a product of fallible human minds and is entirely meaningless. That's it.
At the scale of the universe, everything we do is meaningless. We simply are what we are and that's that. Realizing this causes me no small amount of existential angst. So I try to live in the moment as best I can and leave the world ever so slightly better than I found it.
So maybe we actually agree (on what lack of religion means, not on what we personally believe about morality or existence)?
The argument would work better if the Abrahamic god wasn't so clearly immoral, like in the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing of Uzzah, the Flood. The god appears to be a narcissist (the faith in him is the most important quality in a person), putting reverence and obedience above all (commanding Abraham to murder his son for no good reason). God as described in bible is a morally despicable person and surely no example to follow.
By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though?
Because you clearly don't understand the context or reasoning behind any of the situations you listed, you resort to simply condemning God upon your own authority.
You think of yourself as better than God.
And that is what sin is.
Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.
> By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though?
I think most people would agree that mass murders are morally wrong.
> You think of yourself as better than God.
I have my own problems, but otherwise I don't murder people.
> Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.
Fortunately the god doesn't exist, and the bible is just poorly written fiction.
But even if I was convinced that the Abrahamic god exists, it wouldn't change my opinion that the god is a narcissist psychopath.
> without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morality.
This might be more convincing if we had empirical evidence that this “higher power” even exists and could discern (and thus agree on) what it wants and why what it wants is good.
Was society better in the past when it was more religious? If you think so, maybe you could give a hint about how far back we might look. 50 years? 100 years? 250 years?
Is there a threshold for belief in God that you think is necessary for a healthy society? 50%? 75%?
For example: belief in a higher power simply isn't required to allow people to make their own medical decisions. Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food.
It's absolutely fine to propose religion as an ethical framework, but I don't think it can possibly make sense to propose it as the only ethical framework, or to propose that society will become worse if humans "move away from God".
You're missing the point. You're in good company though. I watched Christopher Hitchens make the same mistake in a similar discussion with Dennis Prager. A number of others in this thread are also doing it. The video link [1] below lays it out pretty well (also points out that A. C. Grayling had the same misunderstanding). Anyway ...
It's not that you need God to be moral. It's that you need an objective "higher power" as the source of that morality.
So I totally agree with what you wrote there, but you can't make a sound argument for a moral position without God or some objective higher power.
> "Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food."
So it's a moral duty to give a hungry person food. OK. I agree. Now we could have an exchange where you try to make a strong rational case for that, during which I will ask "why?" an annoying number of times until we get to the part where it's clear there is no basis for the moral duty absent a higher, non-human, source.
> until we get to the part where it's clear there is no basis for the moral duty absent a higher, non-human, source.
Casual sneaking in of "non-human" here, when a powerful human would fit just as well.
Your issue is that there often isn't a basis for anything at all except "seems to work". That's why we have the joke about the 5-year-old who keeps asking "why", exasperating its parents.
That we don't have a complete rationally-grounded framework doesn't imply the existence of God or even that it's good to act as if such a being exists. Insisting otherwise is basically a god-of-the-gaps argument.
You don't need any ethical framework, religion or otherwise, to allow people to make their own medical decisions. Not to give a hungry person food, nor to do anything to improve anyone's life.
I do understand your argument, and I definitely agree that some set of non-self "objective higher-power" can be very helpful. Like a personal or societal code of ethics. Bodies of law are an attempt at that.
I simply don't agree that our society will become worse the more we "move away from God". It's totally fine if "God" is how you want to do it. But not everyone wants this, and the development of secular philosophy, laws, professional ethics, and personal ethics are excellent substitutes for people who don't believe.
Not to mention, secular alternatives still allow people to practice their religious-based ethical framework without forcing others to do so.
Giving someone in need some food lestens suffering. That lestening of suffering is an observable and easily mentally modeled outcome rooted in the mundane world.
Acting so that we decrease suffering, increase wellbeing, and otherwise reduce harm is moral in and of itself without any higher source.
My own moral duty in that case is rationalized quite simply with the thought that if I were in that position, I would want other people to offer me food.
Wait, we don't need religion for morality but without it, it has no grounding? Perhaps for you and others indoctrinated to think in such a manner, but for others we do just fine.
> The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become.
Whose God? How well is it working in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan?
The Bard makes an excellent point: "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." We could find countless "justifiable" actions that are based on "God told me to", so ignoring that aspect is dishonest.
I got $1000 that says that I could name several “Godly” (greater than 90% abrahamic affiliation) that you would immediately label “a shithole country”, but if I were to name the most secular ones, you’d most likely state that “theyre great, beautiful places to live with good people.”
The suggestion of Cicero as a counter to the expressed neccesity to have religion in order to have grounding for morals is sufficient to establish the existence of moral grounds not resting on religion.
Countering with two Catholic moral | ethical philosophers doesn't negate the suggestion of Cicero, it seems to be just an attempt to make the first proposition a second time.
Cicero might have a good point, but the curt words saying "Read Cicero" by themselves aren't very helpful.
It's going to take more time commitment than people reading random forum posts will give to do that. It would be better to try summarising some aspect of his ideas (which is of course a task that would demand time from whoever wishes to promote him). That's why I said the comment isn't helpful.
Would you be willing to give the hours+ time commitment if a random stranger said the two words "Read [name]" with no further elaboration or would you ignore it? It would be more helpful in a discussion to bring actual ideas to the table, or else the discussion would consist of no more than reading recommendations.
I had an Oxbridge type education, it was common practice for reading to be suggested with no further expansion.
In a thread about education, I expect the responses of the educated.
When an absolute position is taken a single exception rebuts the absolute.
If a comment is made regarding the absolute necessity of religion as grounding for morals and virtue and a simple response is given "Read X" then I expect that X addresses either supoort or raises an exception.
Cicero is sufficiently well known for many to be aware of the material, those that are unaware (in a thread about education) should be curious enough to learn more and advance their own position as to why Cicero may or may not be a suitable rebuttal.
FWiW I felt the comment given re: Cicero to be neccesary and sufficient and I'd tip my hat to the user if I had a hat, were to cross paths, and recognised them as such.
But this is just me, a random drive by HN commenter.
"At the start of my book, Learning JavaScript Design Patterns, I say
"good code is like a love letter to the next developer who will
maintain it".
It is an intimate correspondence, from one developer to another, spanning
time and space."
Seriously?!
It's simple. It's a matter of respect, and treating others as you would like to be treated. It's no fun trying to figure out the "why?" of some code you've inherited responsibility for. It can be frustrating and time consuming.
So why would you put others through it. Make the code and the reasoning behind it as clear to the next dev as possible. Explain it with comments. Refer to issue links. Make it so that there's minimal - preferably zero - unnecessary digging for the next poor soul who'll work on it.
Because I've found there's a bunch of developers who apparently think it is fun to figure out the "why?", and they code accordingly.
>So why would you put others through it.
Because they think their code is "self documenting" and perfect and that anyone that can't immediately understand their code is too dumb to be working with it.
>Explain it with comments.
We just had a discussion here in the last week or two where people were actually saying that comments are completely useless and should never be used.
>Make it so that there's minimal - preferably zero - unnecessary digging for the next poor soul who'll work on it.
Sounds great to me, but in my experience it's a minority of developers who agree with you. It makes working on others' codebases very frustrating in most cases.
We agree table salt (sodium chloride) is generally safe to eat, right? Like, you probably sprinkle it on your food and what not? If I asked you to chug a gallon of water that was 26% salt by weight, you're going to drink it without care? No? I guess you should stop eating foods with sodium chloride!
There's loads of things I use in every day life that I wouldn't want to ingest in odd quantities. I handle gasoline and paint thinner and dishwashing detergents and hand soap every now and then but if you tried to get me to even drink a teaspoon of it I'd probably turn you down. Is the rule now if you wouldn't drink a glass of it you should never handle it in any way?
By the way, please do not drink that 26% salt brine. It will do very terrible things to your body and probably significantly hurt you.
It's one thing to make an academic case in an online forum, that PFAS are not detrimental (at low levels) to human health. But when it gets down to it, would you rather avoid PFAS, or you just don't think they're a problem?
> Is the rule now if you wouldn't drink a glass of it you should never handle it in any way?
Some things are not safe at any level. Lead (Pb) for example. So what about PFAS? Does it accumulate in the body? What are the effects of long-term ingestion?
My question was intended to see just how serious people were, who were making the argument that PFAS weren't a thing to be concerned about.
Sure, I would like to avoid PFAS on things that I regularly eat like takeout containers and the like. I'd probably not go for the Scotchgard coating on my next couch as fibers from the couch's fabric usually get flung into the air and I end up breathing in small tiny amounts and it's a high contact thing overall. But if PFAS improved engine seals means my car will last longer, then sure that sounds great.
I'd avoid drinking a glass of motor oil as well, but I still prefer having my car lubricated at the end of the day.
My point is the highlight that harm, concentration, risk, and damage or not binary but magnitudes. One molecule for glass is negligible and a Pure Glass would be suicide.
correct, and you should price the different concentrations you're willing to imbibe, so communities already ingesting them can apply the same pricing structure to calculate damages for unwilling exposure
"Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure."
-- Melvin E. Conway
Came here to say this - and it applies in the other direction. Microservices allow you to split work between teams without having to coordinate deployment and iteration cadence quite so tightly.
If you have a single team, you shouldn't be doing microservices.
I mostly see organizations with multiple internal dev teams who all have shared responsibility over all of the microservices (e.g. no-one is responsible for any service). The worst of both worlds: all of the complexity of microservices architecture, without the benefit of specialization and splitting work between teams.
The organizational structure doesn't have to be reflected in the built artifact(s), though. Just look at Chrome. It has who knows how many teams working on it, but gets built into a single giant DLL (or executable, depending on your platform). And newer languages like Go and Rust make it easier to link everything into one big artifact like this.
From Star Trek: First Contact: "When you build a machine to do a man's job, you take something away from the man."
You surrendered the need to think to the machine. You are lesser for it. I don't think these AIs are just removing drudgery, like, say, a calculator. They actually do the work. Or more correctly, they produce something that will pass for the work.
Wholesale embracing of this sort of technology is bad for us.
I disagree with this being an example of your point. OP tried to be lazy “find the bug”, but that failed because the machine could not think for them. Then OP used a tool that helped them better understand the code, and found the bug. That’s not lazy, that’s smart.
That’s the message of Frank Herbert in the Dune universe regarding machines. They’re useful up until you start letting them do the thinking for you. Which leads to laziness, stagnation and control by an elite. So did reliance on spice for that matter.
> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
- - - -
This is good and well for existing minds, but I think a lot of people will let these machines raise their children and that might cripple them. Like if you let your kids use a wheelchair instead of learning to walk? It's an imperfect metaphor.
The new movie M3GAN raises that question. It's not a great movie, but even without the eventual horror elements, it would raise disturbing implications for creating doll robots that can do the work of parenting so parents can focus on what they really care about, like work.
I don't know about you but if I had the ability to dictate requirements and to get a program out the other side that matches those requirements, the process of coding has become mere busywork that can be eliminated for the benefit of me and everyone else.
I'm sure the buggy whip makers had pride in their work as well.
But none of what you are talking about has happened today and even the buggy whip reference doesn't make sense because the buggy whip market disappeared because we stopped using horses. The buggy whip equivalent would be the IDE.
I can't speak intelligently about UK centre-right, but here in Aus our Liberal party (as in classical liberal, centre-right) are almost indistinguishable for our Labor (centre-left). Big spending, big government and so we are seeing many of the same problems you mentioned.
I wonder why only the "populists" speak out about these problems, and then why most populists movements are led by extremists. It's not like fascists or communists ever had or have real economical solutions for healthcare or housing or environment, yet they constantly gain votes claiming exactly that (without detailing, of course). Why are all the big traditional parties only paying lip service to the real problems of the little man, even while pretending they represent them? And no I'm not sarcastic, this is a real question which bothers me extremely.
Parties don't really represent interest of their voters. They fish for votes to obtain political power, but they represent the interests of the people who run them (and their friends and patrons) - who are, generally speaking, not their voters.
Thus, traditional parties represent the interest of some subset of the established elites. Which means that the current socioeconomic arrangement is broadly in their advantage. They know that those problems are real, but they can be only solved by giving up some part of the pie. And organizations are much more selfish than individuals, so they never give up unless they believe that the alternative is to lose even more (hence why a messy revolution somewhere else can often do wonders).
