> Barring extreme cases of trauma we tend to be moderately happy regardless of circumstances
This has been scientifically proved wrong. Sonja Lyubomirsky writes that people come with innate levels of happiness, and apart from temporary swings (in either direction, in response to life events and activities), and apart from hugely intrusive, foundational trauma, "level of happiness" tends to remain constant for any given person's lifetime, and said level covers a huge spectrum, when viewed across people.
You can train your mind and habits to increase your happiness, but still, in her famous book, she assigns 50% weight to what level you are born with, and says that, however you fine-tune yourself only amounts to the other 50%. And, since her book was published, more recent research assigns an even higher weight to the innate level of happiness (i.e., higher than 50%). The sun does shine differently on different people, and it's not a mental health issue, it's just a given.
Think about it: if someone is born with 100% happiness, and never thinks consciously about their own happiness level, they will still be more happy (1 * 0.6 + 0 * 0.4 = 0.6), roughly speaking, than a person who is born with 0% happiness, but does everything in their power to improve (0 * 0.6 + 1 * 0.4 = 0.4).
> If you find yourself unable to be consistently at least /neutral/ in a first world country[,] that tends to be a mental health issue worth addressing.
I do agree about this; just know that the playing field is not level at all, and people who are less than moderately happy most of the time are not outliers; they are frequent.
This approach is simplistic. People can usually direct their anger and frustration, to some extent. Most of the time, there's little reason to be angry at a coworker. Even if they mess up, it's usually not a huge deal, it's relatively easy to mitigate or undo; if you need mediation, there's a manager "nearby" in the org chart to escalate to, and so on. In addition, you probably have some camaraderie from past projects and assignments etc, which provides a basis of resilience when they (or you) screw up. Staying relatively pleasant and positive is not a huge challenge.
Conversely, when upper management fucks up, and refuses to take responsibility (for example: admit to making the wrong decision, or even reverse the decision), that's when cynicism runs rampant among the rank and file. And gee, what a surprise, VPs and CEOs try to avoid underlings that speak up about the screw-ups of the brass.
White lies are a necessary wrong; we just shouldn't turn them into a "modus operandi" at a company. Indeed I cannot wrap my brain around how white lies managed to turn into a social protocol in the Anglosphere. Dishonesty encoded in the most basic forms of verbal interaction. In comparison, when I say "good day" in my own language, it's truly not far-fetched that I do wish you a good day, when I'm greeting you.
I think that may be a very cultural thing. I love gallows humor (I understand, enjoy, and cultivate it myself), but some cultures don't even understand it.
Precisely. Fuck "yes people", and the commitment to lying to ourselves / to each other about broken things, as an institutional strategy. If we always dismiss the negatives, then responsibility and accountability have no meaning. Every organization needs a few people who act as the org's mirror and conscience.
> improved safety tooling (bolts) were used to increase efficiency rather than safety
"And so, amazingly, for the first 20 years of its use, the main effect of the most important lifesaving technology in the history of coal mining was to increase the efficiency of the mines while preserving existing probabilities of death and injury."
To me, this is the hardest-hitting sentence of the entire article.
Be sure to remember this whenever a new achievement in efficiency (power or otherwise) is announced, be it in computing, industry, or transportation. Such advances are rarely aimed at lessening the load on the environment; not at first, anyway. Instead, they are used for extracting more profits, while burdening the environment just the same -- I think "more profits" is the incentive for such research and advances in the first place. I think the EU does it right, by demanding progress via regulations. Whether those directives are issued after the technological advances are reported, or the directives are the motivation for the research, I cannot say; either way, advances can be steered toward public benefits only via regulations.
I indeed find the lesson that it describes unbearably bitter. Searching and learning, as used by the article, may discover patterns and results (due to infinite scaling of computation) that we, humans, are physically uncapable of discovering -- however, all those learnings will have no meaning, they will not expose any causality. This is what I find unbearable, as it implies that the real world must ultimately remain impervious to human cognizance; it implies that our meaning- and causality-based human reasoning ultimately falls short to model the world, while general, computation-only methods (given ever-growing computing power) at least "converges" to a faithful (but meaningless) description of the world.
See examples like protein folding, medicine research, AI-assisted diagnosis, self driving cars. We're going to rely on their results, but we'll never know why those results work. We're not going to reject self-driving cars if those cars save lives per same distance driven and/or same time driven; however, we're going to sit in, and drive, those cars blind. To me, that's an unbearable thought, even apart from the possibility that at some point the system might break down, and cause a huge accident inexplicably. An inexplicable misbehavior of the system is of course catastrophic, but to me, even the inexplicable proper behavior of the system is an unsettling thought -- because it is inexplicable.
Edited to add: I think the phrase "how we think we think" is awesome in the essay. We don't even know how our reasoning works, so trying to "machinize" those misconceptions is likely bound to fail.
> Grub is like a turd that won't flush. It's been completely unnecessary for years, is massively overcomplicated
shim + grub suck, but bare bones EFI sucks way more, generally speaking. Vendors of consumer-oriented EFI platforms ("client platforms") are batshit insane; they don't offer UEFI console redirection to/from the serial port even if the motherboard has one; they expose neither secure boot configuration nor boot options management to the user, and so on. A purely EFI-based boot loader such as systemd-boot or rEFInd remains the least annoying choice, IMO.
> "This was the right way to do it forty years ago, so that's why the experience is worse" isn't a compelling reason for a user to suffer today.
On my system, "dnf repoquery --whatrequires cross-gcc-common" lists 26 gcc-*-linux-gnu packages (that is, kernel / firmware cross compilers for 26 architectures). The command "dnf repoquery --whatrequires cross-binutils-common" lists 31 binutils-*-linux-gnu packages.
The author writes, "LLVM and all cross compilers that follow it instead put all of the backends in one binary". Do those compilers support 25+ back-ends? And if they do, is it good design to install back-ends for (say) 23 such target architectures that you're never going to cross-compile for, in practice? Does that benefit the user?
My impression is that the author does not understand the modularity of gcc cross compilers / packages because he's unaware of (or doesn't care for) the scale that gcc aims at.
The author writes: "really stupid way in which GCC does cross compiling [...] Nobody with a brain does this [...]", and then admits in the footnote, "I’m not sure why GCC does this".
> a lot of user-space in Linux-land does not make the same effort
I believe that, what the article misses is that glibc is maintained and extended with an entirely different community and development model. Windows remains compatible over decades because Microsoft (a) is the sole distributor, and (b) puts an immense effort towards backwards compat. In Linux userspace, it's simply a non-goal across distributions. If you want to ship a binary for a particular distro, you need to build the binary on / for that distro; even within a distro, a major release bump (or especially a major release downgrade) may break a binary.
Ultimately, it's a consequence of Conway’s Law. Microsoft is the sole distributor of Windows, so they can enforce compatibilty with an iron fist, and there are people working for Microsoft whose pay depends on said compatibility. With "Linux" in general, there is no common authority to appeal to, and (again) most vendors don't even promise a seamless userspace upgrade path from one major release to another.
This is unfixable; it will never change -- as long as independent parties are permitted to distribute different operating systems yet call them all "Linux".
Ship multiple binaries, or distribute the source code (and let users build it).
EDIT: you'll notice that "ship multiple binaries" is what distros (especially commercial distros) do. They maintain separate branches, backport fixes to old branches, and employ software maintenance engineers to focus on this kind of work. If you want to target multiple major releases, this is what you have to do, too.
If you (as a commercial ISV) target a commercial distro with long-term support, and can convince your users to use / license the same distro, you'll have a good, stable development experience. You only need to port like once every decade, when you jump major releases.
The Linux user base / the Linux market is fragmented; that's the whole goal. The technical proliferation / inconsistency is just a consequence. Unless you take away the freedom of users to run their own flavors of "Linux", there won't be a uniform Linux target.
In a way, it's funny to even expect otherwise. Why do you expect to ship the same binaries when the foundations are diverse, with no standardization authority that all Linux distributors recognize as such? And even POSIX is an API spec, not an ABI spec.
And, any authority that controls binary aspects will immediately accrue political capital. This is exactly what shouldn't happen in Linux. The fact that anyone can fork (or start) a distro, and contribute to the chaos, is good for freedom.
> Give those of us who do 10 times less, but do it right, some kind of marketing advantages, it shouldn't be legal that they are competing with us.
"Quality over quantity" should be the way, but I think it has failed in every single sector. Food. Healthcare. Education. Manufacturing. Construction. ...
First, those in power rebased the diet of the masses to carbs. Consequence: an eternal epidemic of obesity, with the many known complications and illnesses as a result.
Then, they now try to remedy the problem by fucking with the human body's mechanisms. 100% guaranteed to cause terrible side effects, in the long term. It's always more complex than you think. The more coveted a "medication" for a societal problem is -- with the problem being the pigswill that is fed to the masses, and our absolutely terrible sedentary, movement-less lifestyle --, the more quickly it will be greenlit, and the greater damage it will do over time (those pesky "unknown unknowns"). The hubris of human industry is unlimited; here's one example:
> On October 30, 1924, Midgley participated in a press conference to demonstrate the apparent safety of TEL, in which he poured TEL over his hands, placed a bottle of the chemical under his nose, and inhaled its vapor for sixty seconds, declaring that he could do this every day without succumbing to any problems.
The obvious solution to the obesity epidemic is to dismantle the food industry and the 8 hours workday. Our eating and movement/exercise habits need to revert to not just pre-industrial, but pre-agricultural standards. Move a lot every week (at least on 4 days per week), welcome hunger back into our lives (hunger allows you to appreciate and enjoy simple food -- intermittent fasting is amazing), and eat food with high volume, but low calorie content, and/or with low glycemic index. Our stomach volume and our blood sugar control had evolved for those types of foodstuffs, yet due to said rebasing of the diet of the masses to carbs, we've been filling our bellies with artificial food that's hyper-charged on calories and that get absorbed immediately. That's the recipe for growing fat tissue.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
And a final comment:
> Analysts predict that by 2030, 30% of American adults will be on these medications
Why doesn't that prediction make everyone shit their pants, from fear? Do you really want to make all those people dependent on Big Pharma just so they can eat healthily? How more basic do our bodily needs get than that?
This meds are pure evil, they're a non-answer, they're a cop-out, they only transfer power from Big Food to Big Pharma.
This is the same shit as trying to "cure" society-wide depression and anxiety with drugs. It only suppresses (or replaces) the symptoms, without fixing the root cause. We're depressed because our engineered societies make our lives meaningless. The struggle for survival is real, and the universe is unfair and indifferent, so we certainly need society, to cope with that. Just not this way.
This has been scientifically proved wrong. Sonja Lyubomirsky writes that people come with innate levels of happiness, and apart from temporary swings (in either direction, in response to life events and activities), and apart from hugely intrusive, foundational trauma, "level of happiness" tends to remain constant for any given person's lifetime, and said level covers a huge spectrum, when viewed across people.
You can train your mind and habits to increase your happiness, but still, in her famous book, she assigns 50% weight to what level you are born with, and says that, however you fine-tune yourself only amounts to the other 50%. And, since her book was published, more recent research assigns an even higher weight to the innate level of happiness (i.e., higher than 50%). The sun does shine differently on different people, and it's not a mental health issue, it's just a given.
Think about it: if someone is born with 100% happiness, and never thinks consciously about their own happiness level, they will still be more happy (1 * 0.6 + 0 * 0.4 = 0.6), roughly speaking, than a person who is born with 0% happiness, but does everything in their power to improve (0 * 0.6 + 1 * 0.4 = 0.4).
> If you find yourself unable to be consistently at least /neutral/ in a first world country[,] that tends to be a mental health issue worth addressing.
I do agree about this; just know that the playing field is not level at all, and people who are less than moderately happy most of the time are not outliers; they are frequent.