ultimafan

I agree with this wholeheartedly, it's harder to notice this in a field you are a professional in, but what really opened my eyes was noticing how often friction kept me from making mistakes in hobbyist metalworking/woodworking projects. More than once I've either made or didn't make mistakes based entirely on if the tool I "needed" for the next step was in arms reach or a walk across the garage and a search through multiple toolboxes.

Except cheating in games isn't the equivalent of steroids in the gym, since they let cheaters do things that literally no one can without them. And steroids at least have the argument behind them that you still have to put the work in (it's not "free" gains like cheats are, that guy that looks like Arnold is still putting hours into the gym every week to look like that, you can't just take steroids and look the same if you aren't willing to put in the effort)

A much better analogy would be showing up to a weightlifting competition with a construction crane and thinking competing with it against human lifters is fair.

Not just CS, I don't think people realize how prevalent cheating is in any multiplayer game. The issue is compounded by the fact that many high skill ceiling games are plagued by "micro cheats" being used by players that are already fairly decent at the game even without them, making it borderline impossible for casual players to tell if what just happened to them was a fair skill gap or someone cheating.

I don't play multiplayer games anymore for that reason. Too easy to go on an emotional tilt where you feel like you're suffering from paranoia and suspecting too many players of cheating. It's absolutely ruined competitive games for me.

I think you and the previous comment are talking about different types of drones- the smaller commercial quadcopters used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict can be shot down with shotguns fairly effectively.

Both sides have been seen with one member of a squad carrying around an issued shotgun in an anti-drone role- the fact that it shoots pellets in a cone is precisely why it's so effective. Skeet shooting is a great example of how relatively small fast moving targets can be hit consistently at range with a shotgun and they are usually using much smaller/lighter pellets with poorer velocity/range, I would assume the loads used in an anti-drone role are bigger.

I feel like bigger studios have definitely been playing it safer in the last 10-15 years. You used to see a lot more unorthodox ideas and mechanics or just flat out bizarre premises that I'm sometimes baffled even got the green light to go ahead. Today for the most part that kind of daring seems mostly relegated to the indie space. Everyone else looks for the safest option they hope will sell.

Product/tech fanboyism has always existed, sure, not going to argue that point.

But I don't remember it ever being getting anywhere near as heated or pushed in real life conversations. That kind of borderline religious fanaticism mostly lived in online spaces.

I think a large amount of AI skeptics are just tired. I'm what you would call in the AI skeptic camp and the most I'll contribute to in person conversations anymore is feigned indifference towards the topic or something along the lines of "Oh, I haven't really been keeping up with AI news lately."

For me personally (and maybe for others as well?) there's two parts to this. The first is that it's exhausting to constantly be pulled into "debates" with staunch pro-AI supporters who can't accept that you have some reason to be against it or agree to disagree and move on from the conversation. The second is that I've noticed that even mild anti-AI sentiment lately seems to make people (especially tech people) see and treat you as an anti-science luddite or conspiracy theorist.

It's easier to just pretend I don't care or that I'm not interested in public than be a skeptic.

Eat it- plenty of people hunt boar for the meat just like other wild animals. I'm not the biggest fan of the taste but have friends that enjoy it.

The biggest thing I miss about smoking myself and smoking being common and prevalent in general is the social aspect (you immediately both have at least one thing in common and 5 minutes of free captive time with each other)

Stepping outside for a smoke on the job, at parties, while out running errands, in foreign countries as a tourist, to kill time outside an appointment waiting room, etc. was a guaranteed way to strike up an unexpected conversation with all manners of characters from all walks and levels of life that I wouldn't have had the chance (or courage or social skills I suppose) to do otherwise.

Some of the most entertaining or thought provoking conversations with strangers in my life have been a result of this. Approaching random people busy with their random lives outside of a smoking area feels intimidating and often doesn't seem to have the same result (which makes sense- someone smoking is actively not busy)

And in the office, it always felt to me like the smoking areas were the only place you could get real, no bullshit answers from people across teams/divisions "off the record" about actual deadlines/timelines etc.

I've heard people say something to the effect of, just go hang out in a smoke spot and don't actually smoke to get the same perks but as an ex-smoker if I saw a non-smoker doing this I would definitely feel a bit weird about it / less open towards them.

I feel like just about everyone knows of (through friends/family/community) or has experienced some form of life changing harassment, assault, blackmailing, scamming, or otherwise malicious activities that have happened over social media / online platforms and the perpetrators are rarely if ever caught or punished. And it feels like thanks to the AI boom these problems are only going to get significantly worse over the next decade or so, maybe longer, thanks to the ability for bad actors to easily scale their efforts and create more realistic lies/threats/setups using AI tools to accomplish what they might not have had the skills to do beforehand.

I have little doubt that people looking back in the future on the first few decades of widespread internet usage and adoption without guardrails in place will see it as a huge moral failure on society's part. We've created a system that has enabled predators, scammers, and the like all over the world to cause untold amounts of harm to victims they would otherwise never have encountered, and get away with criminal behavior that, lacking a physical out in the open component isn't seen or caught by anyone until the damage is already done.

Instead of slowing down or reflecting on if a 24/7 deluge of social media / entertainment / bullshit novelties are really worth the harm companies are just ramping up the potential for future danger in the name of profit with all these new AI tools for "innocent" purposes.

How often do you see people trying to recreate the lifestyles or belief systems of extinct cultures / societies for themselves to live by in a genuine day to day manner, and not in a academic or archeological capacity?

The content of their belief system might be known and recorded in that scenario but the teaching of it as a genuine belief/truth to live by and to be passed on from generation to generation probably wouldn't be.

It is not a comment on the religious/philosophical validity of the belief as I initially understood it.

Just that for a specific belief to survive, some number of members need to survive to pass it on to the next generation, which if their beliefs bar them from killing or violence requires them to rely on people who aren't.

I don't think this comparison to early/mainline Christianity is entirely fair. It was murder, not "just" killing that was prohibited by their values.

Thanks for the background! I am admittedly not very familiar with Quakers or their history. The clarification in the first part of your post helps with the context, I'll agree it's an entirely different story if it's a moral that is strived for but not strictly enforced (follow this or you're not one of us)

You do have a choice, because the state/police/military aren't an opaque non-human monolith. They are made up of people who DID make the choice to take up that burden, for any given reason, it doesn't have to be an act of selflessness or duty or love for people or country. It just requires some subset of your population being morally at ease with that.

Being able to endorse extreme pacifism long enough to have your belief turn into a large group with many followers is a privilege of being a subgroup in a society where someone else isn't bound by that particular moral outlook. That's all I meant by offloading the burden. You can oppose the violence of secular society, as you put it, while also accepting that that opposition would only ever have worked at any point in history if only a part of your population agreed with you.

There are nonlethal ways of defending oneself or others, too, btw. Learn martial arts, knock them out, use a taser if you have too, then grab your kid and run. None of that requires shooting them.

Agree with the general sentiments of your post. A lot of pro self-defense talks online read like thinly veiled "bad ass" fan fiction where someone salivates over the idea of killing someone in a legal manner that they face no consequences for.

But I don't think this last part is very realistic and possibly even very dangerous. Martial arts aren't anywhere near as effective as people make them out to be if you are not highly trained and essentially useless if the other person is armed even with a knife. They are better for training confidence/athleticism than self-defense. Tasers are frequently shrugged off by aggressors (no shortage of videos online showing this) and if you miss you just escalated the situation with no other way out. A gun is really the only thing that puts even the weakest victim on par with the strongest aggressor. But situational awareness for where you are and who is around you is 100x more important.

It's not a condemnation of the morals within their belief system, and not a demand that everyone should participate equally in (potential) violence that comes along with protecting a community/country.

Just an observation that at any given point in human history such a philosophy could only survive long enough to be passed generation to generation if its members offloaded the burden of having to make that moral choice onto someone else ie police or military. I don't think such a belief could have ever developed and survived in a vacuum.

Every group of humans with surviving beliefs in known history have had some subgroup of (or been a subgroup of) other humans willing to resort to violence to protect the whole.

The interesting (to me) part about such a philosophy is that it seems like it can only really survive and prosper within a society where someone else is willing to pick up the burden of doing the killing for you.

It seems like in nature or on its own such a mindset would be akin to being in a death cult- you're just going to get rolled over by someone else and your "tribe" won't be around long enough to have this belief "reproduce" and be passed on.

But if you live in the midst of a society full of other people who are willing to kill or be killed to protect those in it beliefs like that can grow and gain followers without any risk of external challenge putting their faith to the test.

Reading my comment I realize it may sound a little bit inflammatory or perhaps bloodthirsty- that's not my intention, I don't know how to word it better. Just a passing thought on this topic

The addiction is the kicker there. Kratom withdrawals/dependency isn't as bad as traditional opioids/opiates. But it's a magnitude of an order worse than nicotine/caffeine/etc. dependency and withdrawals for some people. And the full safety profile of people taking concentrated kratom extract for long periods of time isn't really known yet.

I'm really of the belief that the only reason kratom exploded in popularity the way it did was because it was a legal alternative to opiates. Not necessarily because it's an upgrade (or even sidegrade. ) If morphine could still be purchased in every corner store and pharmacy over the counter kratom extracts would never have blown up the way they did.

Any concerns from a technical or ethical standpoint?

Would you feel comfortable if someone made a similar website with the sole purpose of generating photos of your likeness or that of your family?

Nothing is inherently wrong with that if you still get your work done. And I agree that you can find ways to slack off in the office just the same.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be glued in butt in seat 8 hours a day 5 days a week to be productive. I'm saying I suspect that for a large and noticeable enough amount of people it is more shameful to slack off in office when they have to spend all day sitting next to / passing by / talking to the people they are accountable to than when they spend their whole day at home with no worry that they're being judged by anyone. It's no doubt much easier to justify goofing off all day instead of working when your boss and coworkers aren't in constant visual range of you.

Companies probably noticed this (I don't think a degree in psychology is needed to acknowledge that most people act differently alone vs in social settings) and are making people go back.

I see a lot of people on HN claiming to be more productive at home and honestly think they are the exception rather than the norm. Maybe there is a bias here because the kind of person who is "locked-in" enough to their career field to browse and discuss work-related articles and threads outside of work hours happens to be the same kind of person who cares enough about what they do at their job to be productive even at home.

I suspect for the majority of people though, working from home lacks the mixture of accountability and shame that comes from having to work side by side alongside your coworkers/managers/bosses and at least have to do some level of work to appear minimally productive. If no one is watching you and you feel that work is just a means to an end you might be tempted to goof off or drag your feet.

I personally noticed that my productivity plummeted during work from home and skyrocketed when return to office was mandated. Probably it is at least somewhat related to the above. If I'm at home I might be tempted to go on a walk / do some chores / read a few chapters of a book / go workout / take a nap because I don't feel shame for it and no one can tell me otherwise. I would feel significantly more uncomfortable doing any of those things in the office and will more likely than not actually be forced to get some work done out of boredom and with no other options or distractions.

On a personal level? Sure, I don't think anyone should be calling out, naming and shaming, or drawing attention to abnormal behavior that specific individuals have. Nobody should target a real human being doing something weird but otherwise harmless to others with the intention of causing them distress.

But on a societal level I think it's absolutely okay to look around and say, "Hey, have you noticed the <insert something out of the ordinary> behavior that's starting to happen? What's causing that? How did it become normalized? Is that something we should readily accept?"

Such cases can absolutely be symptoms of larger societal problems and we shouldn't brush them away without examining them first.

I don't think the kind of dog ownership you're talking about is the same as the one in the article.

It's about dogs as a replacement for children which anecdotally I have definitely seen happening. I've met more than one married couple who are proud about not wanting kids but own a dog and treat it to an absurd degree like one would treat a toddler including but not limited to talking to / about it like one would to their child (imagine the kind of coworker who loves to talk your ear off to you about every single little detail of their child's life, complete with photos, but with a dog), cooking for and feeding it like a child (not just putting a dog bowl out on the floor), hiring babysitters when they go out, taking it to daycare centers for dogs, planning activities for/around it, doting on it like a child (dressing it up, carting it around in a baby stroller on walks) etc. etc.

It's a world of a difference from simply owning and taking care of a dog. It's a perpetual simulation of human childcare projected onto a dog that never "grows up" and without all the struggles and ugly situations that might happen with a real toddler ie tantrums.

Guns (and really most forms of progress in warfare and violence) undoubtedly fall under a similar conundrum.

Funny to note that at least one inventor who contributed greatly to modern warfare (the creator of the gatling gun) did seem to reflect on his future impact but figured it'd go in the opposite direction- that a weapon that could replace a hundred soldiers with one would make wars smaller and less devastating, not more!

That was a very interesting read, thanks for linking it!

I think the unfortunate reality of human innovation is that too many people consider that technological progress is always good for progresses sake. Too many people create new tools, tech, etc. without really stopping to take a moment and think or have a discussion on what the absolute worst case applications of their creation will be and how difficult it'd be to curtail that kind of behavior. Instead any potential (before creation) and actual (when it's released) human suffering is hand waved away as growing pains necessary for science to progress. Like those websites that search for people's online profiles based on image inputs sold by their creators as being used to find long lost friends or relatives when everyone really knows it's going to be swamped by people using it to doxx or stalk their victims, or AI photo generation models for "personal use" being used to deep fake nudes to embarrass and put down others. In many such cases the creators sleep easy at night with the justification that it's not THEIR fault people are misusing their platforms, they provided a neutral tool and are absolved of all responsibility. All the while they are making money or raking in clout fed by the real pain of real people.

If everyone took the time to weigh the impact of what they're doing even half as diligently as that above article (doesn't even have to be from a religious perspective) the world would be a lot brighter for it.

About the last point- I remember hearing somewhere, though it could be an urban legend, that that's precisely the reason early Dungeons & Dragons (OD&D/AD&D era) had so many variations within different dice roll mechanics for whether or not a high (or low) roll was good or bad (ie high rolls for your attack was good, high rolls for initiative were bad).

If the player used the same dice for all rolls, a balance check against biased or loaded die was therefore built directly into the game, with the perk of making it very obvious if a player was using specific dice for specific rolls

It's for a reason similar to this that the only game I will play in casinos is craps.

It's not hard to imagine ways to get cheated out of a "fair" bet in card games, roulette, slots, etc. whether it's a mechanical cheat, sleight of hand, adjustment of odds, or whatever. Not saying it happens or is even a common occurrence but it's very easy to imagine ways it COULD happen or has happened in the past that are impossible for the player to detect.

Craps is the only game it feels like to me where provided the payout odds used are the same standard you see everywhere and the dice aren't metallic there is virtually no way to cheat the player/a bet in a way that wouldn't also benefit another player/another bet.

Interesting to think about- would it really matter if the casino was loading their dice? Craps allows you to bet for/against almost every possible bet and you usually have people playing pass/don't pass and come/don't come on the same table. Offering weighted dice to screw some players out of their money is probably going to result in the other players making just as much if not more back. Superstitious players absolutely would notice a "streak" and switch their bets to match it, and the casino isn't going to be able to swap/take away the dice without killing the vibe and making those same players cash out.

Feels like it's in their best interest to have a "fair" game where they skim some percentage of odds off the top.

I don't order from the app, didn't know there were discount there. I probably won't use the app anyways, I think it's ridiculous having to install an app for every fast food place just to get better prices, I'd rather just not go anymore than do that.

And is the meal before/after tax? I distinctly remember last time I was there a few months ago being shocked that the price came out to about $15 per person all getting meals.

I feel like this is 100% it. We used to go to McDonald's pretty often as a cheap but tasty treat. Being able to grab a few burgers, orders of fries etc. to feed a whole family for significantly less than it would cost to go out to eat at a "real" restaurant.

Now it's go out and pay $15 per person at McDonald's for crappy, inconsistent food that doesn't even taste that good anymore and eat it in a dirty McDonald's location with crazy homeless people making a scene not 10 feet away from you. Or you pay $17-18 per person to go get a big, juicy, well-made burger from a proper bar and grill with clean seating and family atmosphere. It just makes absolutely no sense to go to McDonald's unless you're on a road trip at weird hours of the night where nothing else within miles of you is open. Taco Bell, KFC and others have had similar problems for us.

We've gone from eating fast food two or three times a month to eating it maybe once or twice a year after the pandemic.