That feature I'm using regularly and can recommend doing so, e.g. when passing boolean flags to functions, to clarify their meaning at the call-site by ensuring they have to be passed by name.
Great comment, articulates something I've been feeling lately but didn't quite have the words for. (Not American, but similar situation in my country.)
Where do we go from here? What kind of action would be effective?
My pet theory is the proliferation of digital entertainment options, and gaming / online culture. There are a lot more ways to keep yourself occupied inside, so less reason to go out and get into trouble.
Disagree, because I think everyone's conforming. No psychologically healthy human being just acts out their authentic self without any calibration with some type of peer group. Whether that peer group is NYU undergrads, or their fellow misfits in Albany / pump.fun, is just a difference in degree.
Sometimes the peer group can be remote. The only emo kid in Baghdad is a unique snowflake relative to other Baghdadis, but is following a fashion code vetted by people on Tumblr.
anecdote, counter example. i left my home country to go to places where i would be accepted without having to conform. living in a country where i already stand out by my skin color alone makes it clear that i am not the same as everyone else, and as a result noone is surprised if i behave and think differently too. that was a big problem for me at home. people would not accept that i had different ideas and a different attitude towards things that mattered to them. (i don't care about soccer for example, the national sport where i come from. things like that, the problem being that people turned it into a problem, refusing to accept it)
sure there are groups online that i can and am joining, hackernews is one, there were (and are) even local groups where i fit in better. but even in those groups i am only appearing to conform to the outside observer. inside i often take on a non-conformist position, in part by conviction, in part because that's how i grew up. i was always the outsider, and i am comfortable in that role. all i need is an environment where being an outsider is accepted. in every group that i am joining, i am there because i believe in the idea the group represents, not because of the relationship i have with its members. i would remain there even if everyone else left.
Fashion is just a person broadcasting to others: I am like you, or, I am not like you: a way of finding peers (and acting as a red flag for the more closed-minded).
I see a deeper point in the person inside, if that makes sense. Fashion is just a filter.
i have been through that. i used fashion to distinguish myself from my classmates. until i realized that this was the only reason, and that if my classmates would start to copy me i would change my style just to remain different. at that point i dropped some things and focused on what i liked regardless of how it would be perceived or how it would allow me to distinguish myself.
I have something similar (though less elegant). I find the best use case to be hitting ..........<RET> to get to root (in conjunction with zsh auto_cd option), rather than typing `cd /`.
So many anonymous writers on Substack who seem to take pride in giving zero biographical information. Then they write geopolitical analysis or whatever with enormous confidence, frequently calling out the experts in the field as idiots.
I guess they'd argue that the author's identity shouldn't matter and that one should just judge the writing on its own merit. The problem is that we're drowning in information. AI makes its trivial to generate authoritative-looking nonsense. Evaluation is costly. So I prefer to read something which the author has associated with their own identity (which means there's a cost to lying), or has provided some credentials to prove why their opinion matters. Of course there are exceptions (Gwern comes to mind), but I'll only trust them if they're recommended by other writers I trust.
>Then they write geopolitical analysis or whatever with enormous confidence, frequently calling out the experts in the field as idiots.
Slightly OT, and of course only half anonymous but for example G.S. Bhogal really fits that bill. His posts come up here occasionally and I get a kick out of them but the real gold is in his twitter (1) Don't listen to the haters and make sure to follow for quality life advice (like don't listen to politicians and journalists because they're all corrupt liars, or that "below average IQ" people should reproduce as to not spread their genes, and the really smart people don't need friends or go outside, what they need a "circle" of other highly intelligent people like themselves on X
I can accept some level of anonymity. Heavens know I would not want to have my current employer read some of the thoughts I post here, but one would think that when one poses as some sort of an expert or at least someone, who can offer a perspective, you would be able to get at least some sense that they might know what they are talking about.
Too often at this point, I saw/heard/read things explained very confidently and yet missing the mark quite a bit.
Agree a piece of informative media - in theory - should be taken on it's own merits alone. But to live in that world we would need to forgo the ability to make informed assumptions about how well thought out the media itself is. That's why research papers are intended to be read as though you don't know the author - it's purely data based & logical, any calls to background knowledge requires an explicit reference.
Pseudonyms are to opinions like incorporation is to businesses. It lets you take a risk without coming back to bite you personally. If you're right (or people like your opinions), you can gain a following with it. If you're wrong, you can always abandon your pseudonym.
I don't necessarily think that's bad. I do it myself, by posting with usernames that are not directly attached to my own. But there is a certain amount of respect that I give to people that do things with their name attached. They take a risk that many in our society no longer do: they put their name and identity on the line with their opinions. Even public figures who are absolutely reprehensible in about every way possible get a tiny bit of respect from me for having their name attached to their shitty opinions.
The storyline as I remember it, was that startups can uniquely disrupt the big organizations (private or governmental) and unlock growth that was otherwise unavailable, and that's what attracted VC money in the first place. Innovator's Dilemma and all that. Seems like an eon ago.
Great news. The copyright owners of Tintin are very litigious [0].
I have some "Tintin in Vietnam" prints at home that are commonly sold in SE Asia [1]. Those street vendors will be happy to know that they're in the clear now.
reply