zzalpha

Fair point, I've edited the comment to clean it up.

Condescension?

This article is all kinds of horrifying. ... "We are just going through the motions cuz we gotta. Kind of like plunging the toilet."?

Maybe you should go read a book like "Lovers in marriage" before you go trying to write anymore marriage advice.

Or, you know, you can make time for each other because this is the most important person in your life. Instead of making excuses.

I could go on.

I did not set the tone, here, and I stand by my comment.

Complaining about your spouse to your friends is a wonderful way to damage your relationship; the unthinking assumption that you should be venting about your spouse is harmful and should be challenged.

Just on this point, I couldn't agree more.

The problem with "venting" is that whomever is listening is almost certainly part of your personal echo chamber. And when dealing with a problem in one's marriage, the last thing people need are mirrors reflecting themselves.

I can't tell you the number of times I've come out of a fight with my wife where, some time later, I realized I was a total ass and needed to apologize for my behaviour.

If I'd "vented" to someone, odds are it would've just hardened my resolve.

(edited for tone)

In many perfectly healthy, normal marriages, there's a disparity (sometimes significant) in sexual interest/appetite between the spouses that has absolutely nothing to do with their love for each other and everything to do with basic biological, sociological, and psychological differences.

In such a marriage, sexual intimacy actually requires focused effort to maintain. Not "work". That makes it sound transactional in nature. But effort. Like, you have to prioritize it.

To suggest that marriages in which this is necessary are somehow broken is simply unfair. Every marriage is unique and beyond basic expectations of love and decency, it's unreasonable to use ones own experiences as the template by which to judge other people's relationships.

Hey, if it works for you, it works for you.

That said, I'm curious to hear what kinds of things you're referring to. Do you have some fictional examples?

My wife and I each have our own best friends, but in my own marriage (14 years... since we all have to publish our credentials ;), if there's something I can't tell me wife, it's something I wouldn't tell anyone, best friends included.

The only obvious exception is if it's something about the marriage itself, but in that case, I'd speak to a friend first only if I needed to work out my own thoughts and emotions before I then talked to my wife. So even in that case, it's more a matter of timing than keeping certain things from her entirely.

I think the word "goal" is too strong, here, but it is a valid point.

People change, and in a good marriage, the spouses should absolutely push each other to change in ways that are healthy and positive.

It's simply ridiculous to assume that whomever you're marrying, right now, is the person they will be for the rest of their lives, or that you shouldn't try to influence those changes.

In fact, that goes beyond just marriages... I would hope that, in all of my relationships, be it as friend, brother, husband, or son, I am a positive influence on my loved ones, and that those people are a positive influence on me.

I'm not sure where I came across this concept, but I've heard the use of a terminal described as entering into an interactive conversation with the computer.

That is, where users of a point-and-click interface might interact with a computer superficially, the command-line allows for a fluidity of expression and progression of intent that it's extremely difficult to supplant.

When you realize this, the mistake this comic makes is obvious: the command-line is, for many problem domains, simply a superior method of human-computer interaction. In fact, in many ways, it's the GUI that squanders the immense power we have at our fingertips, as it frequently makes it more difficult to express intent rather than less.

For example, here's a basic task: Find all files in a given directory with spaces in their names, and replace those spaces with underscores.

At a command-line I can think of any number of ways to solve this problem. I'd probably opt for a combination of find, sed, and bash looping.

Now try to do this efficiently in any existing GUI interface that isn't purpose built for this exact operation.

The conversations we enter into on the command-line allow us to iteratively build up solutions to problems, solving them with simple, composable tools. There is simply no GUI equivalent.

So what are the benefits over Tor?

How so? If it's under individual control, you'll just end up with sub-networks where people will agree to distribute that type of content.

You cannot pair anonymity and security with censorship. They are fundamentally incompatible. So either accept that nasty content will be out there, or acknowledge that you don't actually want perfect anonymity and security.

How is this different from Freenet or Tor?

Which is, of course, extremely misleading because income tax is hardly the only tax people pay...

and they're motivated by money/views/prestige instead of destabilization to fulfill geopolitical goals.

Exactly the point.

Look, there's this thing in western jurisprudence called "mens rea". It's what differentiates, say, first degree murder from manslaughter.

In this case, RT and Sputnik are clearly motivated by the desire to manipulate the US election. As you've already conceded, those other outlets are not. As a result, these represent different acts, and therefore it is not unreasonable for them to warrant different responses.

ROFL, wow, talk about cherry-picking to make a case...

The fact is the US offers the least PTO of any developed nation. Same goes with sick leave and mat/pat leave.

And free lunch? Free bus passes? Stock and option plans, profit sharing, educiation/tuition, retirement, gym memberships... HA!

I know this is shocking, but: most of the world isn't SV. Those benefits are fantasies for the vast majority of American salaried employees.

Many people I know live with 2 weeks of combined PTO, 3 months of maternity leave (mandated by law... ish... there's a bunch of exclusions) and no paternity leave whatsoever, basic health care, and a 401k match if they're lucky.

Now, I'm not claiming that a salaried employee isn't more expensive than a contract employee. That's objectively true. And in a very real sense, the entire point and why this trend is alarming: the more people pushed to underemployement (part-time or contract work), the more people who don't realize those additional benefits, thus contributing to the ongoing demolition of the middle class.

But the US workplace is hideously behind the rest of the western world, and is still managing to lead the way in underemployment as well. After a while you really gotta wonder why that is...

The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having monopolies in most cities and fares would be outrageous.

Uhh... Uber is, like, 5-6 years old in most locales, less in many. This isn't some alternative universe we have to imagine. We just have to think back to before 2010... you know, the before time. The long long ago.

And back then, taxi rates were hardly "outrageous". Hell, even today, Uber isn't necessarily that much cheaper in a lot of places.

I don't understand the question. It's not like a ketogenic diet results in a lack of blood glucose... which is good, because if it did, it would kill you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Your reading is simplistic.

This is talking about blood glucose levels, which is influenced by many factors, including glucose production in the liver.

I don't know why so many people think this is the case and then hate on the product.

Because that's how it's positioned in the market?

Like, literally what they claim it's for, and supposedly the reason they went into business?

Heck, Rhinehart once claimed "I have not set foot in a grocery store in years. Nevermore will I bumble through endless confusing aisles like a pack-donkey searching for feed while the smell of rotting flesh fills my nostrils and fluorescent lights sear my eyeballs and sappy love songs torture my ears."

I'm Canadian and drink Soylent regularly, maybe like 2-4 times per month.

Random aside: Once every week or two is considered "regular" consumption to you?

Isn't this product supposed to be the end-all and be-all of meal replacements? What has curtailed your consumption?

This is almost certainly about false claims/marketing based on usage of regulated industry terms. Simply removing the offending labeling would bring them into compliance.

I find it telling that you chose the verb "using" over, say, "eating"... :)

But the bad thing about capitalism is that things that are hard (or impossible) to quantify are, at best, an afterthought.

It's actually worse than that. Capitalism cannot on its own deal with negative externalities even when they are quantifiable.

You solve that through government regulation. But when government is bought and sold by businesses who would prefer costs be externalized as much as possible, the outcomes are... less than ideal.

I really don't think mosquitoes fulfill any role in the ecosystem that can't be filled in by other species

This is literally the exact kind of hubris that got us in this mess in the first place...

I can't help but laugh watching HN commenters, who probably have no kids of their own, take shots at your parenting style.

You sound like you're crushing it. Keep it up, man.

Personally, I grew up in a single parent family as a classic latchkey kid and greatly contributed to the household out of simple necessity. The life skills I learned were invaluable, and you're doing your kid a great service by having them learn those lessons.

Seriously?

Yes, kids need to learn that responsibility sometimes means doing what we don't want to do, often as part of caring for others.

That's called growing up.

Then again, given the number of "adults" I've met that don't know how to cook or do laundry for themselves, or gripe if they have to sacrifice their own time or energy in service of others, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by this comment...

Fair enough, obviously early access is part of the price differential during the initial release.

But are you claiming form factor is not part of the price at all? If so, how do you explain it for books that have both versions actively in print?

I have absolutely no reason to believe your claim. What's your evidence?

In fact, it doesn't make sense: it's not like hard covers get cheaper over time.

Thats more of a perception problem than an actual fact. It turns out that hosting/supporting ebooks does have incremental costs and people dramatically over estimate how much the price of a hardback is the physical copy.

The publishing industry can blame themselves for that.

Back before ebooks, a typical paperback would run between 8-12 dollars whereas a hardcover would easily be 20 dollars or more.

This gave the perception that printing and binding is a significant portion of book price.

Of course, we all know that's crap. In practice, they were simply charging a premium markup for a product that was perceived as being superior.

But now who can blame the consumer for having the same basic expectation, but in the opposite direction, when ebooks are considered?

It's also possible though that I'm getting a selection bias of the kindest Christians who are the type that not only go to church but go volunteer with Habitat because the church is doing it

Yes. You are.

I also think that there are relatively few institutions that promote virtuous, pro-social behavior with the effective and long-term viewpoint that a church can.

You mean, aside from, you know, the family unit, schools, the boy and girl scouts (yes, I realize there's a light religious component to those organizations but they are not, themselves, religious institutions), secular charity organizations...

Frankly, being blunt, your entire comment reeks of bias against atheists... which shouldn't be too surprising. In the US, atheists and rapists are seen as equally trustworthy.

The idea that a secular society can't "promote virtuous, pro-social behavior with the effective and long-term viewpoint" is patently absurd. And that religion unquestionably does so is equally absurd.

It's ironic, as Canada and Europe are far less religious than the US, yet far more "virtuous", providing far more in terms of support for the poor, the elderly, and the family unit, among other things.

But yes... religion, clearly that's the way to build a virtuous society...

I just wanted to come here and show some respect for religious communities that work very hard to help people and the world become a better place.

Why specifically religious communities? As long as someone is doing good in the world, what difference does it make? People deserve respect so long as they themselves respect others.

That said, if they provide charity or other services while pushing their religious beliefs on folks, as is often the case for proselytizing religions (I'm looking at you World Vision), then they lose my respect. My spiritual beliefs should not be held hostage in exchange for charity.

Nonsense indeed...

I made what I believed was a rational risk assessment at the time (back when MtGox was spinning up... Not exactly the most credible days for BTC) and decided to avoid the hype.

Could I use the money now? Sure. It's money.

But I don't regret the decision now because I was acting on the information I had.

Heck, even now, it's possible for someone to buy BTC and for it to crash. Should those people regret their decision even if, in their estimation, it's rational now?

To be blunt: if you spend any time regretting these types of things you're a gambler, not an investor, and will find yourself tricked into trying to time markets. And that will eventually bite you in the ass.

As for me, the same reasoning that kept me out of the market then keeps me out now: I don't believe in the fundamentals and I'm not a gambler. Full stop.

For those who do, the should buy and hold for the long term to realize the most gains.

But "it's worth a lot more now than it was 10 years ago" is not fundamentals. It's just the irrational assumption that past performance predicts future behaviour.