waivek

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "frontend code can't enforce invariants" ?

I see a lot of people confused about the host (Facebook). Carmack initially posted a lot of high quality articles on AltDevBlogADay. However, that site went down. Carmack said he moved to Facebook because he feels it's more reliable than other (cleaner) third-party hosts, which might not be around 10 years from now.

Laptops aren't ubiquitous.

I've used vim for seven years now. My vimrc is a gargantuan 122 lines of vimL. It went from 0 lines to 300 to 750 and it's been 122 for a year now. Whenever someone asks me for tips and tricks to learn vim I reference this tweet:

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/473247789728952321

Just use VSCode / SublimeText / Notepad++

It wasn't an insult as much as an observation made by another user:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19357372

And almost every view you have of India, even your most recent one seems to be based on stereotypes and Bollywood films.

If you actually said these things to an Indian in person, they would call you a bigot.

^ That was an actual insult.

This is getting borderline pedantic, lol.

This is the first time I dropped the second sentence. I've only quoted it twice and I quoted it fully the first time.

I tried to answer your question by trying to inform you that the scenario your painting is incredibly, incredibly unrealistic.

I also feel that the context of the argument changes when you take into consideration what my top-most statement was.

I was expressing disbelief at the prevalence of old-age homes in western civilization. I took the article as a way to express that sentiment.

I acknowledge that dementia can be rough, and even I have had one or two extended family members who have gone through the same. My own grandfather passed away from Alzheimer's and yes, the last year was difficult. I'm not uncomfortable to face the question. What is a hypothetical to you was a brief reality to me. I'm just trying to make you see things from a different perspective.

All I was trying to do was to understand what I felt was a dissonance in your world view w.r.t how we treat our children vs. how we treat our parents with regards to professional care. That's all.

EDIT: The only reason I omitted the daughter-in-law statement is because it paints you in a poor light if you think that it's her duty to take care of aging in-laws. It came off as a bit sexist and I didn't want to derail the conversation.

The "immobile incontinent patient scenario" isn't too commonplace. In my family and most of the extended families of my friends, you stay with your parents for companionship and helping them out in day-to-day tasks if required. You don't wipe their shit for 15 years, they're still pretty able-bodied and independent.

What is confusing to me is your insistence to see the worst-case scenario and treat what is the last 3 months of their lives to the year-to-year scenario.

Please don't call me simple minded when I'm trying to be civil.

Now, back to your reply. You're saying that for you to put your child in professional care you would have to be an addict or abusive or schizophrenic. However, these don't seem to be preconditions for putting your parents in professional care. So going back to the statement I was focusing on:

As long as you can provide good quality care, there isn't much of a moral difference how it's done.[1]

Is it fair to say that you feel this is true for one's parents but not for one's children?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354278

I think we're going a bit off topic here.

I only ask that you don't let the plot devices of Bollywood films have a non-trivial influence on your world view.

The statement of yours that I was originally replying to was:

As long as you can provide good quality care, there isn't much of a moral difference how it's done. Just don't see how a trained professional changing vessels is worse than resentful daughter-in-law doing the same.[1]

The extended case I wanted to talk about was of a healthy, financially sound adult. Not kindergartens or extreme circumstances that lead to foster care. Say this adult wanted to put their 3-year old into an institution of permanent professional care. Would you find that to be the same as putting one's parents in an old folks home? Or is there some difference?

I am going to assume that you have children, because your entire tone changed when I brought up kids. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Would you be fine with putting your children in such an institution if you felt overwhelmed by the responsibility of child-rearing?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354278

I didn't mention daughter in laws in any of my comments. You might be confusing the replies together. Your entire statement really seems to be a very pessimistic take that is certainly a possibility but not commonplace.

There are challenges in taking care of your in laws but raising a child is easily a more painful and arduous task, so it's not very extreme in the larger scale of things.

Also, I didn't bring up virtue. One of the other commenters is fixated on me demonstrating moral superiority so I'm trying to speak to only that person w.r.t. virtue.

I originally replied to that commenter with a statement that implies that there is literally zero virtue in taking care of your parents in India. Nobody praises you or holds you in higher esteem for doing so over here.

Ok good we're on the same page then. So if the nursery was permanent and replaced the role of the parent completely, would that be moral?

Or to equate it more fairly, if a parent paid somebody to permanently take care of their children while they they visited them periodically, would that be as moral as putting their parents in a nursing home?

How was it smug in any way? I was trying to draw parallels in an attempt to understand your thought process.

You asserted that as long as the quality of the care is acceptable, the source shouldn't make too much of a difference. I tried to give an example that would meet these requirements and still be questionable and you completely shut down.

That's a very uncharitable reply

With the recent (and by recent I mean since 1991) opening of the Indian economy, there has been a cultural shift in the Indian mindset.

It might surprise you but leaving India for education or employment is actually pretty commonplace and is not actually in conflict with the picture I have painted of India.

However, India hasn't been as successful as China in rapid development without it affecting cultural values. China has pretty swiftly achieved modernization without westernization which I think was one of the sub-goals of it's architect: Deng Xiaoping who laid the foundations of the same in the 1980's.

Our equivalent of Deng was unfortunately only a brilliant economist, so his 1991 reforms were limited to economic reforms with no social safeguards to help avoid Westernization.

As such, India right now is in a massive state of flux. There are Indians abroad similar to the one's you had met who have siezed the opportunity given to them to massively elevate their quality of life. There are also Indian's abroad who left the country with a very specific goal of either: 1) bringing their family in the next decade or so or 2) secure enough money for an early retirement and return to India.

It really comes down to the type of mindset their parents valued, not the country they were born/raised in.

Ah okay. I think I am beginning to understand your point of view. :)

Can this concept be extended to a parent-child relationship where the parent is replaced by a trained professional?

I think the key difference is that the visit from your mother-in-law was a novel or unique experience which you might not have the emotional tools to handle. It isn't exactly fair to compare that inexperience with what is a way of life in India.

The visit may have been uncomfortable for you because of the absence of societal and cultural rules to help streamline these situations.

That's also a way of looking at it. I wouldn't agree with the part where you say "family caretaking is typically presented as a virtue" however. Being virtuous is synonymous with being honorable. If you see a parent taking care of their sick child would you say "how honorable"? Or is it simply what is expected of them to be considered a decent human being?

If you're not living in absolute poverty, it's completely possible to take care of your parents as they grow old. My father took care of my grandfather until his last day and they lived under the same roof albeit on different floors.

No matter how my life turns out, I will still do the same for my parents as they have done for theirs.

For large swathes of the population, putting your parents in and old-age home is seen as a complete and utter betrayal for the sacrifices they made for you.

Parents and siblings?

Completely agree with everything you are saying. I also immediately have to think about something else to avoid what I feel would be a mental collapse.

One thing that has given me a bit of comfort was an answer I heard when somebody asked one of the great minds of the 21st century, Jennifer Lawrence, "what happens after we die?"

https://youtu.be/5LoBGoQPUNc?t=371

As an Indian, I will never ever be able to wrap my head around the concept of an old-age home that seems normal in western societies.

Whenever I find myself feeling a bit envious about the obvious advantages that are there in western countries, the reminder of the existence of this absurdity immediately removes all feelings of jealousy.

Thank you for putting into words the thoughts that I have had for quite some time. The "panicking" I experience is also similar, more accurately described as horror-fueled panic.

A good snippet to come back to whenever one needs to be humbled:

Euler's work touched upon so many fields that he is often the earliest written reference on a given matter. In an effort to avoid naming everything after Euler, some discoveries and theorems are attributed to the first person to have proved them after Euler.

HN generates emotional friction[1], is filled with shallow but clever sounding dismissals[2] and is filled with low quality discussions on high quality articles[3].

[1] https://twitter.com/paulg/status/787775131682758657

[2] https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1068457691171958785

[3] https://twitter.com/paulg/status/731198734726356993

As a software "engineer", I've always been envious of architects and the well-defined path to mastery that exists in their field. You start off as a lowly apprentice and only through years of study and practice can you progress.

As a result, the best architects in the world are generally forty and above and there is a correlation between age and competence. There is no 22 year old rockstar architect. The bar of competence is so high that six months of concentrated effort is simply not sufficient for an outsider to become a professional architect.

They did do an episode on the monocultural aspect in the latest season. Richard unintentionally "outs" a guy as being Christian and some of the programmers feel uncomfortable working with a Christian.

The guy later pulls Richard aside saying that he wasn't "openly Christian". The whole episode was hilarious.

Try equity also

Theology and to a lesser extent, mathematics.

I use Github pages. I'm not a professional web developer so my take is pretty non technical.

The main difference for me seems to be netlify let's you have input forms and do POST requests whereas github pages is more static and only serves static pages via GET.

The Turing complete one.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763