This would be a more charitable argument if Discover was in the habit of promoting proprietary software for sale. Perhaps that's true on OpenSUSE specifically? On KDE Plasma on my system, the search lens only seems to suggest things in the local repositories, which are all free software. It's also trivially easy to configure which lenses are enabled, and as a bonus has a local file search that actually works (and quickly at that)
I guess HN is just a more pretentious version of Reddit now? Share simple facts and people downvote/flag you for not being sufficiently outraged about the subject?
They must have a very creative definition of "active user" because Zuckerberg gets 15-20k likes on his posts while I can scroll down X and find several posts a few hours old from random gimmick accounts with many times more. Taking that at face value to call Threads "the leader in its category" is comical.
It actually shows half of the post followed by …, making you think that by clicking it you’ll see the rest. But then you get taken to the App Store to download Threads.
Likewise, I wouldn't be shocked if I'm counted as an daily active Instagram user, despite not having an account or using it directly. The "shorts" are embedded in FB and occasionally interesting.
... Why would you expect Zuckerberg to get more likes than "random gimmick accounts", tho? Those, rather that rather boring billionaires, have traditionally been the major driver of engagement on Twitter, too.
This reminds me of how Playdate owners make it very obvious they don't use the thing in the way they retroactively justify their purchase by commenting on quirkiness or aesthetics at the expense of functionality or usability. I guess I get it but there's cheaper plastic toys out there.
I don't think that is retroactive, people bought it because it was different and looks cool and is quirky. I think it is a very fun device and has some great games for it. It isn't for everyone but it is a cool device for people that appreciate what Panic is doing with it.
Right, I remember reading that story, pretty cool but I had a hard time imagining the mechanics of the game at the time. Purchased, I'll give it a shot.
This doesn't address the contradiction. The fact that a CEO's sociopolitical views take precedence over the impact of the actual company is exactly why ESG is a cancerous tool for political activism that should not be taken seriously by ethically-minded investors. (Kind of like DEI actually since you brought that up.)
It sounds like ESGs aren't for you then, or at least you want an index that is almost entirely weighted on E scores.
> take precedence over the impact of the actual company
Either you think that social (and to a lesser extent governance) impact is impact or you don't and that will pretty much decide how you view ESGs. It's not as if Elon is ranting in a vacuum where those views don't manifest in real effects in the companies he owns and the wider political sphere. Regardless of how you feel about how S scores as they're currently measured and their worth as an ethical north star Musk companies don't get very many marks. And that's fine -- I think that's the point, it seems very purposeful. It seems that Elon only actually cared when that fact hurt his stock price, not on principle.
And I'm sure investing in 1789 Capital will skew the other direction and that's fine too. You won't hear me saying their indexes are illegitimate because they do what it says on the tin.
Elon Musk got the stick for being outspoken and disagreeing with elements of a quasi-religious ideology (disregarding his further radicalization following that event). ESG doesn't "do what it says on the tin", there would be no significant backlash if it did. And it's just ridiculous to claim that mean tweets from a CEO outweigh the huge environmental impact of Tesla to the point that Exxon is/was ranked higher by ESG metrics. This absurd gaslighting and word-twisting does not work anymore which is why ESG, DEI and the like are being rejected.
The idea is to stand up for the weaker party and that's it. It doesn't matter that Palestine is led by a terrorist group with a genocidal agenda with overwhelming popular support. They are weaker and therefore they can't be wrong, by virtue of being weaker they are automatically classified as oppressed and deserving of pity, whilst Israel being the stronger party makes it automatically the bad oppressive party in cartoon style. See also how no one doubts the obviously cooked numbers on Palestinian deaths. You can see this rationale mirrored exactly in the disproportionate criticism of Western states and specifically white settlers.
But don't conflate protests against Israel as being in support of Hamas. Many people support neither, but are horrified how kids are bearing the brunt. Hamas commited attrocities, so has Israel; all lose in war.
Personally I've never seen a "pro-Hamas" sign, I have no doubt someone somewhere has one. Ive seen plenty of "Free Palastine" signs be called anti-semitic though, despite showing support for the people versus a government.
That "River to Sea" phrase has a very sinister and evil meaning when you look up the original Arabic. Translations are always polished for mass appeal!
I see Jews being harassed, synagogues vandalized, 4chan-tier anti-semitic conspiracy theories going around leftist circles, and more broadly I see social media armchair activists who may or may not be relevant but do affect public opinion parroting Hamas propaganda wholesale, and the protesters featured in this post's article exemplify exactly that mentality which is what I was initially describing. Most people are reasonable, but I'm not concerned with people who know the difference between a hot war and a genocide.
When I see aid trucks being attacked by the army but also by protestors while the UN declares millions of people at risk of starvation, I know we are past a “hot war”.
As far as I know, friendly fire and collateral damage are a reality in all hot wars, especially in situations such as this one where one side attempts to blend in with civilians, so I don't see how this is different. The good and bad of the Internet is that in the sea of information you can pick and choose your truth. Was Israel's killing of aid workers intentional or was it collateral damage? All I know is that Hamas was shown cooking up numbers and lying systematically and that's the side everyone believes for some reason. When their lies are exposed they are simply replaced with more or with some disproportionate criticism of errors committed by the IDF.
I read /pol/ occasionally like I read far-left commentary and I can assure you that they portray Hamas/Iran/anyone aligned against Israel or openly anti-semitic as a gigachad. If Jews were wiped off the face of the Earth then sure they'd pick a secondary target, probably Muslims.
Then you're blind. I've not seen a single person at these protests where I live supporting Hamas. The protests are all about stopping the murdering of innocent civilians. If you take that as a statement for Hamas, you're the one conflating these two things and the problem is entirely in your head.
I highly recommend you read the book The Lemon Tree.
I used to think the same as you. Obviously, Palestinians are wrong, right? They rape and murder Israelis? Well, look < 100 years back, and "Israelis" did the same to Palestinians when they forced out Palestinians from their homes to make present-day Israel. Obviously, there was a lot going on in Europe at the time, so it's a bit hard to blame the "Israelis" from 1940s completely too.
Understanding how we got here tho is very important. It helps humanize Palestinians, understand why they're mad, and what we can do to peacefully move forward. I believe there is a peaceful solution to the almost 100 year long Israel/Palestine conflict, however unlikely it is to come to fruition.
Are you serious? That culture is why America still has high innovation while other Western and "culturally Western" countries that do not are largely stagnant. I'm amazed at how often I see people (largely Americans I'm guessing) criticize the very things that make their country a world superpower.
I think there's too few 21 year olds being handed big investment dollars to form the majority of what causes "America to still have high innovation". The average age for founders starting successful businesses is somewhere between 35 - 45 years old: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wha...
I'm still waiting for the USA to "innovate" on a way for everyone to get health care, although sometimes I suspect the lack of a solution there and general lack of regulation at large is part of why American has such "high innovation".
We're pretty close. Obamacare covers a lot of people and employers are required to provide it if they have over 50 employees. Any hospital is required to treat anyone who comes in, regardless of ability to pay. It's sloppy and it's expensive if you don't qualify for ACA subsidies, but if you want healthcare/health insurance in the US, you can most likely get it if you try.
Conflating health insurance with health care is a common American mistake.
Having the ability to pay every month for health insurance doesn't do much to protect you from losing everything to health-related bills. Unless, of course, you are rich enough to afford the 'Cadillac' health plans.
America is basically a cut-throat place where unchecked capitalism runs amok and you can make a fortune if you're smart and/or lucky in business. Getting everyone healthcare isn't going to improve things for people who like things the way they are. It would be a boon for many small businesses, yes (imagine if independent restaurants didn't have to worry about employee health insurance because they had government insurance), but tech giant companies don't care about that because they can afford to basically be their own insurance company, which helps them prevent competition from small upstarts.
So yes, I agree the general lack of regulation is part of why America has "high innovation", but it comes at a great cost to society, and yields a highly stratified society with a lot of losers, and this causes society to be rather dangerous, with a lot of crime, homelessness, drug abuse, etc.
I'm inclined to disagree based on my personal experience. I was never subjected to the kind of pressure you're talking about with regards to mental health and medication, but I spent too much time on social media and not enough in real life since I was a teenager and I am almost certain that it negatively impacted my mental health. The only thing is that I wasn't really aware of it and so I didn't dwell on it too much. I could see the fixation on mental health exacerbating the issue.
On the Internet it's easy to feel surrounded with people even though you're not really socializing. Low-res text-based interactions that characterize most social media today don't provide enough signal for people to develop their social skills adequately, and the asynchronicity doesn't help either. Most people won't just tell you how they feel about what you're saying, but in real life that's what body language and other indirect signals are for. We've all heard stories of zoomers being less socially capable than previous generations. Now consider that the social awkwardness is not only curious from an outside perspective, but is also a perpetual source of anxiety to the people affected with it and can lead to self-isolation and other unhealthy coping behaviors.
> I spent too much time on social media and not enough in real life since I was a teenager and I am almost certain that it negatively impacted my mental health
But was social media the issue here or was it that you didn't spend enough time interacting with the real world?
If your point is that social media makes it easier for us to not spend enough time interacting with people in the real world then I'd agree, but I think it's wrong to suggest social media is the primary problem here. The real issue is that kids are spending too much time on their own in doors.
A kid sat in their room watching TV all day and night is probably just as likely to feel depressed and is also likely to struggle socially.
I don't have kids and if I did I wouldn't give them smart phones, but I'd much rather them have smart phones and social media access so long as they had "normal" social lives and were taking part in after school activities where they were playing and interacting with other kids in the real world.
Just taking a kid's phone and replacing their addiction to Tiktok with Netflix probably isn't going to help them become socially well adjusted individuals. Where I agree strongly with Haidt is that kids today need to interact more with other children in the real world, and importantly they also need to learn how to deal with difficult social situations on their own.
For years now there's been an increasing number of children / teens that sit at home doing nothing but scrolling social media and playing video games. In the past it was the geeky guys that we mocked for never leaving their "mum's basement" who were dealing with these mental health issues, but now that we have smart phones and popular social apps a similar kind of thing seems to be impacting teen girls.
I don't think we really disagree though to be honest. I think you're just incorrectly attributing the blame primarily to social media, when I'd argue it's the lack of real world interaction which could be related to social media use, but we've seen other iterations of similar things in recent years such as dudes spending too much time in their mums basement or "Hikikomori" syndrome in Japan. What's always true is that kids need to get out the house and spend more time interacting with real people / children.
We used to have computers in schools, on which we did all the things you present as requiring a cell phone to do, only without the persistent Internet access. Somehow we survived.
Last time I checked, a kid in a car can't download an assignment they forgot to bring, check their grades, or submit an assignment electronically, to a school computer when away from school at a friends house, a second parents house, or on a trip a family trip, without a mobile device.
Many people are more mobile now.
And schools are increasingly supporting remote access and activities. It is especially fantastic for multi-home families where whatever a kids needs is often somewhere else.
> Somehow we survived.
This phrase is used a lot, but I seldom find it persuasive.
We survived without tools that didn't exist in large part because they didn't exist for other people too.
But when they arrive, and become popular, they change the balance of other things, whether any individual wants them to or not. Sometimes they are so popular and useful, they raise the baseline of what people need.
Literally all of the examples you gave to support the idea that children need uninterrupted Internet access would be solved with a little bit of advance planning instead. Obviously your mind is made up, but that's not convincing at all.
You seem to be trivializing experiences I shared without providing a basis. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> would be solved with a little bit of advance planning instead
We needed more planning, because ...? I am lost as to your criteria here.
We solved many complex family issues with smart phones, which the kids used responsibly, largely due to lots of planning of healthy activities and quality use of time.
The kids also competently leveraged their phones for other valuable benefits, and it was especially nice for me to be able to contact them at any random point (outside of classes), without having to know where they were. They are my kids - being electronically present, via voice, text, pics, gaming apps, etc., when I was not able to be physically present, meant a great deal.
> Obviously your mind is made up
My "mind is made up" because ...? What is your basis here?
Throwing around an empty (potentially projecting) accusation, does not make it true.
For 25 years and going, we have adjusted our parenting roles by trying new things, seeing what works, seeing what stops working, and adjusting. "Making up our minds" would not be a useful means or goal.
Both Plex and Jellyfin refused to import my fairly standard and accurately tagged music library last time I tried, and Plex is definitely opinionated about structure in video libraries.
Jellyfin wasn't happy with my music library either until I realised wanted the ReleaseGroup field to be set. I set Picard to work and an hour later it imported perfectly.
I saw discussions on GitHub where it was suggested that they refuse to match based on metadata over folder structure because they don't trust people to tag files properly. With my library, it generates multiple album entries per multi-disc album because I have them organized with a subfolder per disc, which not only makes no sense considering when you could easily match on disc number and parent folder, but is also a regression. "Short on developers" is a good excuse for lagging in features, not for poor design/implementation. Finally, relying on non-standard fields for matching is unnecessary and is in line with the "overly opinionated" complaint.
I'd probably use Jellyfin if it got the basics right and lacked a thing or two, or if its opinionated implementation was limited to trivialities like how Plex refuses to use local images not named cover.jpg. But it's too opinionated, too inflexibly, about too many things, and I think its opinions are stupid, so it crosses the line as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't help that the code is convoluted and I couldn't figure out how to make changes to the way it analyzes files easily.
I think my problem was that I used Beets to organise my mp3s a long time ago - maybe 2011. It didn't write the ReleaseGroup because that might not have been present for all albums on MusicBrainz at the time.
It still did a great job and Picard nicely filled in the blanks.
And mine will be studying ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin and reading the Torah, Homer and Virgil. Anyone allowing children near electroludograms designed to be addictive before they're familiar with actual classic cultural artifacts is simply irresponsible. Of course, I am not so ignorant as to forget the Orient. I have already arranged for my second child to be shipped to China at birth to provide government financial incentives to a local couple. I've told them I'll take her back when she's caught up on the last 3000 years or so of Eastern human capital.
It's this kind of backseat parenting entitlement that makes me never want to have kids. It feels likes it's a free pass for strangers to tell you anything they feel akin to extremist religious fanaticism.
It's great you want to culture your kids. But many bright young individuals grew up without any of that.
There's also a ton of studies that show video games help with problem solving cognition, so I'd be curious your thoughts on that.
Did you perhaps miss an element of irony? I know parents who have sent their kids to Latin charter schools, I know parents who send their kids to learn Hebrew. But I haven't so far met any who sent a child to China to help someone qualify for a government bonus.
