>How does skill help you get connected to the internet, if nobody is willing to connect you?
It would be trivial for a group of competent engineers to set up their own physical infrastructure across multiple redundant internationally based ISPs if they had such people willing to work on this. There was a recent article about the Pirate Bay's founder chiding them for an inability to stay online [0]. If you want to fight the system, you're either gonna need to know how to do it or you're out of luck.
I suppose I could rationalize my continued use of Apple products and even stock ownership with the TOS argument: people voluntarily decide to use Apple products and accept their ToS, and henceforth they are not living in "free speech land", but in "Apple ToS land".
So it's just Apple kicking an app for violating the ToS. Nothing to see here.
Only the timing seemed rather odd.
And of course if I want to use that rationalization, I also have to accept that I live in "Apple ToS land", which I actually do.
Edit: I wonder if apps will start to have vendor specific moderation. Instead of deleting messages, they could just be flagged with "deleted on iOS" or "deleted in China"? I suppose with the China example, they already do that? Certainly news sites already do that, I get "this content is not available in the EU" a lot.
I don't understand why "rationalization" is necessary. Of course any app store platform is going to have some minimum standards, it's both right and sensible that they be allowed to have such.
You can disagree with some of Apple's policies (I think their policy on emulators is dumb), but to me the solution would just be to allow other app stores so consumers can choose.
People who bought Bitcoin for $1 in 2009 won the lottery. There was no rational basis for expecting any significant payout from that.
Marrying into money is an option for some, but you have to make a big emotional sacrifice (at least in Western culture) if you opt for going by wallet instead of going by heart. It's doable, but GP's point here is that a rich person doesn't have to make that choice.
Why would it be a big emotional sacrifice to marry into money? Especially if (as some studies suggest) money is a big part of what makes men attractive, odds should be high for actual love being involved in the decision.
You have repeatedly brought up marrying someone rich in this thread saying it is "mostly an option for women".
So, are you some how saying rich women only marry rich men, but rich men will consider poor women? So much so it's actually a thing? Sources, please? It sounds extremely out dated and kind of gross...especially because you keep saying it like it is some valid thing.
It's definitely a thing in places like China where you have a much larger population of men, and it is harder and harder to find a woman (so much that some people buy their wives online from other poorer countries).
It's a well known data point. In general, women don't like to marry down, and men have less of an issue marrying down. Think of the classic "doctor marries nurse".
If you Google, you should find a lot of articles about it, as it is an important sociological issue. Now that more women are having a career, in fact, more women than men are having an academic career, it is becoming difficult for women to find adequate men.
Also women marrying up was historically the MOST important mechanism of social mobility (people moving up in status/wealth). Too bad that feminism does not allow it anymore, as any man who marries a less wealthy women is considered to be "abusing his power".
The other claim, women being attracted to men with more money, I am less sure about. I am sure you can find studies analyzing data from dating platforms yielding that result, but I don't know how well they generalize to dating in general.
Yes, having money is good. That's why many people strive to have money.
I personally also don't think it is unfair if kids of rich parents inherit their money (or their support). After all, being able to take care of one's children is a major motivation of many people for trying to make money.
It's also well known that money is an important factor in mate choice for women.
Even without money, biology would be at work and people would be striving to find attractive mates to conceive "fit" children.
You could then also say those "fit" children are "privileged" compared to "less fit" children.
--
Anyway, as your own anecdotes highlight, if you are not rich, find another way, for example a rich person who gives you money.
Don't think there was any weighing in on fairness going on as much as it not being acknowledged enough.
I believe, from experience seeing it, many founders who succeed will quote literally everything but their background, upbringing, and privilege as a factor, even though the fact that they had little to worry about while building their empire with respect to you know, the things everyone else has to care about on a daily basis (bills, debt, what happens if I fail) is an extremely large factor.
The barrier to entry of them taking a risk is so much lower that it is (in my opinion) directly correlated to their success at the end of the day.
Anyway, that's all. Less about fairness, and more about wish this was really highlighted more.
My impression is that "privilege" has by now taken on that meaning of "unfairness". It seems to be the most common modern use ("check your privilege" and so on). It sounds as if those people don't deserve it.
It's a shame, because I think it used to mean exactly the opposite, having a privilege was an honor. Is the phrase "it was a privilege to have known you" still being used?
You should recognize your privilege along with your strengths, and not overtly hide your privilege to appear on equal footing.
I have intimate knowledge with writers, specifically offspring of well known writers who do their best to hide this fact, yet will still use their parents agent. And yes, it is unfair for them to believe they are on equal footing with any other writer.
That doesn't mean they don't try hard, but they do have benefits built into their life that others don't.
If you want to trailblaze without being perceived as someone of privilege getting there then you should take paths that align with that, and not ones that don't.
Pretty sure that every good writer can make it, though. Perhaps the mediocre writers have an advantage if they have relations. No doubt a lot of awfully bad books are being published every year, and some even are successful.
I used to think about this, "only people with relations can make it". When I got older I realized that if you care about some subject, you will probably end up making relevant connections on the way.
And I also think this way of thinking about privilege is self-defeating. If you don't have "privilege X", find another way.
Some writers now got rich without ever having an agent, self-publishing.
I'm sure people will find some other alleged privilege they had, which allowed them to do that. That's not the point.
If you are dead poor and have no connections whatsoever, you have the "privilege" to write authentically about being poor.
First of all, different people have different dreams about Bitcoin. There is not the "one" dream.
Secondly, this sound like the standard argument against deflation, why would people ever spend their money? Why indeed? Why should people be MADE to spend their money?
The reality is that eventually they spend it because they need things, for example food to eat. Even in deflationary economies, people still need to eat.
It doesn't have calendar or mail at the moment. Note taking is probably very simple. I am not sure if it lets you take notes per web site, or just in general.
I'm not fully sold on "doesn't belong in browser" - arguably, it the browser is almost like an OS, it is not far fetched to ask for such features. I guess that is also what ChromeOS does.
So again, what is the point? I acknowledge that some (many) people have it worse than myself. Now what?
It is also a common recommendation to meditate on ones inevitable death daily. Maybe thinking about the fate of sick people could have a similar effect.
And of course one can wonder how to improve things for sick people. But that's only useful to some extent. I think it makes mostly sense for people in the social circle of the sick person.
I don't think there is much I can do for the spoon woman, safe for donating some money to Lupus research. And I also can not spend all my waking hours donating to various health research organisations (only so many spoons to go around). So maybe I donate some money to Lupus research, but beyond that, there would not be much benefit to me thinking much more about it.
When you bond with somebody with Lupus or another severe illness or who generally has it worse than yourself you can now better understand how they live their life. Many people don't know how such things affect a person on a daily basis. You just learned something about the human condition. Isn't that something?
The fact that you complain about somebody who complains about somebody, who thinks it's a good idea to bring up that "everybody feels bad sometimes" in a comment section about a personal report regarding a severe illness, should have told me that you are probably unable to learn in this regard.
I complain about stupid people who think it's necessary to bring up that "everybody struggles some more, some less" in a comment section about a personal report regarding a severe illness.
Let's say your fictional (?) dog dies and you talk about your experience with it. Should I tell you that my wife's dad died in a motorcycle crash? Or that everybody has their struggles? That would be the epitome of human decency, wouldn't it?
I think my comment might have been severely misunderstood. By saying that everybody struggles I did not mean "Stop wining because it's worse for others". What I meant was, we all go thorough periods when our spoons are not enough, and that this is totally okay. Going trough difficulties and thinking you are the only one is harmful and feeling alone in such circumstances is unnecessary because we all find our self there sometimes.
Yeah, nobody should feel alone. The spoon theory helped the author to feel a bit less alone, because her friend who did not understand her, could understand her a little bit more with the spoon theory.
Her friend probably thought, "hey I also sometimes feel a lack of spoons". But the enormous extent the author has to deal with spoon management still surprised her friend. It surprised me too.
I don't think it's ok to have such a lack of spoons. I think some people are indeed very lonely when it comes to their kind of lack of spoons. I don't think thinking that way is harmful. Getting such a severe illness is a severe loss of life quality. You will probably grief for the rest of your life. It's nothing you can fully move on from.
At least I would never hug a person with such a background while saying "I understand you". That is impossible for me. Hugging, of course, yes, but claiming any real knowledge about how such constant lack of spoons must feel is impossible for me.
That's again the classic power games bullshit. "You could never understand me", "It's impossible for me to understand you" and so on. That's overly dramatic and self-aggrandizing. And in the case of the person who is sick, also inducing unnecessary loneliness.
It not dramatic, simply the truth. What is so dramatic that I cannot fully understand somebody? I can perfectly live with that. I cannot fully understand you and I cannot fully understand the author. The author has a huge part of their life I cannot understand. Since I have children I can for example now better understand other parents, but I will never fully understand their individual struggles.
That is just acknowledging individuality and diversity. I will still demand stuff from those I cannot understand well. For example abiding to laws etc. Individuality does not automatically imply immunity to judgement or special treatment. You seem to think that.
I'm sure if I would tell you about the death of my dog in this thread, you would complain that I bring it up in the context of somebody with a horrible chronic disease.
I just want to understand your motivation, and the motivation of the OP. I guess I have a feeling you like to lord it over other people with the help of victims of diseases. (Similar things tend to happen when somebody dies - there are always people who then order other people around on the basis of "the deceased would want us to do x").
I never once said that the spoon women doesn't have it hard, btw. That is your interpretation. I want to know why it annoys you if people are not sufficiently sad about it. I probably live at the other end of the world, so I just wonder why it is so important to you.
Btw there is also a story about Buddha who told one of his suffering disciples to find somebody who doesn't have a hard fate, and they were unable to find somebody. I guess Buddha was a real asshole, according to you (he did exactly the thing you claim is a big no no).
> I guess I have a feeling you like to lord it over other people with the help of victims of diseases. (Similar things tend to happen when somebody dies - there are always people who then order other people around on the basis of "the deceased would want us to do x").
WTF man. "TBQH I have a real dislike for the relativistic thinking that people apply to this." So lordly!
> I never once said that the spoon women doesn't have it hard, btw. That is your interpretation.
I never interpreted it that way. The author of the report probably also does not want you to feel pity for her. She just told you a story about how life is for her and she came up with a analogy to make it more understandable.
Buddha also says: “Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.”
"lording" was a bit strong, I just couldn't think of better words to describe it.
You clearly seem to want me to do or feel "something". In the other thread you talk about things like "the decent thing to do", "showing empathy", and so on.
My question was, why. What's it to you. As I said, I don't know the woman with the spoons, and I also don't play down her predicament.
So why do you want me to behave in a certain way? That's "lording", for lack of a better word. You want to determine how other people have to behave.
No, I don't want you to feel something. I just think if you think the way you describe it, it's not very empathic and also not very thoughtful. And I wanted to tell you that in an attempt to give you another perspective on what padolsey wrote. I can live with you not being empathic or thoughtful. I just failed to give you another in my mind morally and intellectually superior perspective. I wanted to give it to you for free :)
You seem to have a problem with me thinking that about you. When I try to explain my perspective, you seem to try to dismiss my arguments by making up ways I might not be empathic myself etc.
You constantly ask "What is the point?" Why do you think the woman wrote about her spoon theory? What is her point? Do you really think padolsey wrote the comment on relativistic thinking to play thought police?
You don't want anything from me, yet you accuse me of not being emphatic. Or you just want to help me to communicate better, but then, how about reading other people's comments without prejudice?
The correct way to show empathy to you seems to be to show pity or say "oh my god it is so bad, I could never understand it, because I have it undeservedly so much better than you", or something along those lines?
"You constantly ask "What is the point?" Why do you think the woman wrote about her spoon theory? What is her point? Do you really think padolsey wrote the comment on relativistic thinking to play thought police?"
Indeed, I asked myself the question, I think it is a valid one. I thought her description was interesting and I therefore upvoted it. But I also resented her for the "you are all so clueless and could never understand how hard it is for me" vibes. To be honest, I get some "identity politics" vibes from that, it reminds me of the "white people can never know how bad it is for black people" or "men can never know how bad it is for women" nonsense, boiling down to "I'm so special". I don't like it also because it is so self-defeating. The spoon woman seems to think everybody else has unlimited spoons, which is of course not true.
And the relativistic thinking comment - I don't know? Maybe he wants us to be aware at all times, and make everything we have our privileged access to, also accessible to people with severe illnesses? Why did he make the comment?
> You don't want anything from me, yet you accuse me of not being emphatic.
So what? Isn't some dissent normal in a discussion. Not being emphatic is not the end of the world.
> how about reading other people's comments without prejudice?
I try to.
> Indeed, I asked myself the question, I think it is a valid one. I thought her description was interesting and I therefore upvoted it. But I also resented her for the "you are all so clueless and could never understand how hard it is for me" vibes. To be honest, I get some "identity politics" vibes from that,
So I don't feel those vibes. I think it's a wrong impression and a sign of you reading it without good faith.
> it reminds me of the "white people can never know how bad it is for black people" or "men can never know how bad it is for women" nonsense, boiling down to "I'm so special". I don't like it also because it is so self-defeating.
It's not nonsense. It's the other way around too. But it's not boiling down to "I'm so special". The question is what do we do with this information, that there are experiences that differ from our own sometimes much more, sometimes much less. You seem to see a fight here that I don't see.
> The spoon woman seems to think everybody else has unlimited spoons, which is of course not true.
To her it seems to be unlimited which is very telling.
It's like complaining about people who claim they live under a fascist regime because they have to wear masks in the supermarket. It's making a point about human decency.
Maybe for some people the consequences of lockdowns are more severe than for you. Aren't you all about feeling with people's predicaments?
Also I don't agree with the (common) argument that nobody should be allowed to complain about anything, because there is always somebody who has it worse, somewhere in the world.
Like with solving "first world problems" - yes, it seems frivolous to worry about getting an even better iPhone, while people are starving somewhere else. On the other hand, those people, if they can solve their immediate problems, would perhaps also enjoy having nice iPhones. So it is not inherently bad to worry about the existence of nice iPhones.
Or put differently, it can not be the only purpose of life to help people who have it worse. I mean somebody could adopt that as their philosophy, sure. But it requires people who need help, therefore it can not be a universal philosophy. If suddenly you run out of people who need help, you have lost your purpose in life again.
> Maybe for some people the consequences of lockdowns are more severe than for you. Aren't you all about feeling with people's predicaments?
Bringing up fascism to make your struggle important is never a good idea. I can feel solidarity without being reminded of really dark aspects of humanity.
> Or put differently, it can not be the only purpose of life to help people who have it worse.
I agree.
I only talk about acknowledgement. It's not that hard. Also it's simply unethical to compare first world problems with somebody starving in a concentration camp. You can do that, but it's annoying and stupid. I think it's ok to complain about stupidity of other people.
It's OK to worry about totalitarian control, as there are always groups and politicians working towards that goal. It's actually one of the lessons one should draw from remembering dark times.
Some people may worry more than others. I have read reports from therapists that they have clients from former communist countries who struggle with the lockdowns, because it reminds them or horrific things they experienced.
There are also a lot of people who have built up enourmous hatred and murderous thoughts because of Corona. Where I live, there are writings on the wall that "Covidiots should be burned" and stuff like that. It's not that far fetched to think about totalitarian regimes murdering people in that context.
> Some people may worry more than others. I have read reports from therapists that they have clients from former communist countries who struggle with the lockdowns, because it reminds them or horrific things they experienced.
Those are probably not the people who compare themselves with Sophie Scholl on protests or something like that. They know the difference.
> It's not that far fetched to think about totalitarian regimes murdering people in that context.
Really? I think this only makes sense when you have a rosy idea about how Totalitarism looks like.
"Those are probably not the people who compare themselves with Sophie Scholl on protests or something like that. They know the difference."
Are there many of those? Here in Germany we had one case I am aware of, and while I didn't follow it closely, it seems very likely that she has some kind of mental health issue.
"Really? I think this only makes sense when you have a rosy idea about how totalitarianism looks like."
Nobody claims what we are experiencing right now feels the same as life under fascism. Just that it feels like the prelude to it.
I don't think it is far fetched at all. We've seen major changes of our way of life and people's attitude over a short amount of time, and major divide in society, driven by fear.
The hate is real - people fear for their lives and the lives of their parents, and they are ready to blame whoever comes in handy. And the hate is murderous, especially because people fear about their own lives.
I think if you enter a shop without a mask, you can well except violence from some people.
And it can get worse if people refuse to get vaccinated. Already businesses promise not to do businesses with such people anymore. How can you NOT see analogies? You could say not getting vaccinated is voluntary, being Jewish is not. Nevertheless, there are parallels. Nobody claims the exact same thing is happening.
It seems likely to me that fear for their lives was also what drove people to adopt fascism. The rosy view is to look back and think it was just stupidity or "evilness". I think people also feared for their lives. Here in Germany they had just witnessed an extremely murderous war (at a scale we can not imagine anymore), murderous insurrections, stuff like that.
Ich glaube kaum, dass Faschismus der Furcht um das eigene Leben entspringt. Faschismus wird aus Stolz, Unzufriedenheit und der Sehnsucht nach Führung und Gleichschaltung geboren. Ich bin da kein Experte, aber Faschismus ist sicher keine Frucht um das eigene Leben. Meine Urgroßeltern waren sicher zumindest zum Teil Nationalisten, Rassisten, Antisemiten und Monarchisten. Das geht sicher vielen Deutschen und vielen Europäern so. Ich glaube in so einer Atmosphäre hat Faschismus leichtes Spiel. Faschismus ist aus meiner Sicht motiviert durch eine konservative Sehnsucht nach Ordnung in einer turbulenten neuen Zeit der Republiken und demokratischen Bestrebung, die viele einfach überfordert hat.
What exactly do you mean? You mean if you want to do something extraordinary, bureaucracy keeps you in check? I think "normal days" are pretty automatic in terms of bureaucracy?
