I mean, the suffering required for a human to legitimately want to kill themselves is extreme, kinda by definition. So uhh…yeah homie might wanna continue keeping that to yourself lmao!
On the other hand, suicidal threats with no actual sincerity, to get attention…on that I agree with ya. Cringe AF.
Yeah man we’re pretty squishy! I’d imagine an adult gorilla has to consciously try not to hurt us in physical interactions of any kind lol, like me with my own kiddos. Fairly sure just pulling off a limb would be well within their capabilities. Guaranteed death sentence, and a brutal one, no question.
Grappling a gorilla is such an unbelievably bad idea lmao, no matter the BJJ steez. You’re right, things are fucking tanks, just flat out invulnerable to us hand-to-hand.
Feel like DMing a bit? I’m in a similar boat, but not as far along. I’ve got what I believe is a viable idea with a niche but common market, I’m largely familiar with the tech involved (having built something similar before), and even the costs. Currently working on a POC before trying to conduct actual market research interviews (I realize most folks consider that backwards and are probably right).
THIS take makes me think your whole thread is just trolling.
Hey, similar feelings from me in a lotta ways, especially regarding the “churn” we see where continuing tech evolution makes our expected output rise in almost precise equilibrium with the rise in quality of life tooling and general sophistication we get to “enjoy” (and I mean, sincerely, some stuff like IaC has made irritating tasks joyfully painless in comparison to the bad good ??? old days ).
BUT! Something maybe we can all get a little excited about - in some important ways (Linux ecosystem, federation trends, self-hosting capabilities and enthusiasm, urgent global need to diversify cloud reliances) - FOSS is in a strikingly beautiful place today. It’s never been more important, and it’s never had a stronger, more diverse, and arguably more passionate array of people working hard to make great shit for us all.
Cheers and take heart!
Hell yeah! And another dope thing about the whole shebang, turns out the derivative < - > integral operation is wildly useful for describing…everything.
The simplest example, that I love the most, is just the very pedestrian (pun intended) relationship between a car’s position, velocity, and acceleration. It’s just enough “levels” (of diff < - > int) to have some instructional “meat”, and it’s a totally ubiquitous experience.
And then, when peered at more closely, that kind of relationship starts to crop up everywhere, suggests so much more!
Calculus is best maf
So, the heart of the issue is that each object’s path changes continuously, and the forces involved change in kind. Even worse, the objects interact with each other, again continuously - it’s not one-sided.
If you imagine trying to do it pre-Calculus, some kind of “just map it all out into a grid, etc.”, you can see the problems this continuous change imposes (exercise left for the reader).
By involving the Stravinsky Interpretation, it quickly becomes clear that the dimorphic superposition destabilizes. The clever reader might object “but what if you fold in all the noodly surfaces to recohere the manifold?”
And that clever reader would be right! But we didn’t know that until old Dr. Isaac “Zeke” Newton came along and made it that way.
Some say the devil himself taught him how it’s done, because no one else can read his notes! So keep your eye on old Zeke when you run into him.
“Dark Pathways” indeed, really telling on themselves lmao
I’m so sorry :(
This happened to my wife, FWIW, from an old horrible partner (abusive too, v cool). Her outbreaks got milder over time to where now they’re a minor inconvenience at most. And they don’t get in our way, so to speak.
Even though, yes, some folks are now preemptively and permanently out of your dating pool, I’d argue that a lot of the people self-excluding in that way have done you a favor.
Love is strong stuff! I can imagine how low you feel about this, but I hope you allow space for it to improve over time and you don’t give up on having a sex life or romantic partners. You’re worthy of love, this dumb (and seriously common) disease can’t change that :)
Gotta say, Larson knew his ants.
It’s funny, this kinda stuff reminds me of the best parts of the (largely bygone) punk rock and hacker subcultures. Feels like almost the specific overlap between the two. And lately it feels like there’s been more and more of that, like the condition of the world is causing those ethos to reawaken, to recapitulate their evergreen salience, maybe even to combine.
Probably projecting a bit, to be fair. I feel I’ve internally stayed an old punk rocker and hacker, and feel those old flames reigniting, despite the indignities and compromises that come with middle age and spending eventual adulthood trying to survive in corporate America. Not so punk after all, lmao
Edit: minor grammar
You’re not really engaging with my points or questions so I’m gonna move on. I understand how the current situation works quite well, having been involved in many businesses in many different roles throughout my life. Most of us agree the way things work today is awful. I was here to explore fruitful changes to make to the status quo. Not to be told how one can, in fact, seek risk through the joys of sole proprietorship.
Cheers, have a good weekend.
That’s a super naive understanding of how it works to “setup a business”, outside of I guess a sole-proprietor tiny little situation.
And regardless - let me ask you, why must it be all or nothing? Under your scenario, I either take all of the risk myself by founding the business, or I am strictly paid in dollars by someone who did, and nothing in between - but why? What’s the argument that this is a good way to do things? Am I not taking some risk by buying into the company I work for? Why is that only an option for the very top of the company? Because “risk” is a misnomer that focuses on the wrong part, and actually it’s freaking great to have a true stake in your place of employment?
I’m not arguing that it’s impossible to start a business, or to work and scrape and get lucky and transition into the ownership class in some small capacity. I’m saying having only a few people have true skin in the game for any business is frickin stupid, a bad way to do things, likely to produce half-hearted efforts from employees, and guaranteed to produce the extreme wealth inequality we see today.
Edit: bit more detail on my preferred approach
Thank you, very useful to have someone who has done it in the thread. Would you agree that being born into one of the wealthy families in America would dramatically reduce the difficulty and risk of everything you’ve described above? All that stuff sounds so much easier if you’re rich enough to pay others to do a bunch of it, and rich enough to still be fine (even still rich, usually!) if it doesn’t work out.
What if instead of zero profits, all employees are paid in part via some amount of ownership stake in any company?
My issue with the “we take all the risk, tho!” argument is that I’m never even allowed to take the risk, too. For example, my current company is small, compensation has grown disappointing after we were acquired by VC, and there is no pathway for me to begin purchasing any kind of ownership stake. We’re just the labor, despite all of us having been here longer than the new owner, in many cases having been here to build the thing the new owners bought.
So it must be pretty damn attractive, actually, for those at the top to continually offer that to one another, while withholding it from anyone below executive leadership. I’m pretty tired of hearing it as a justification when those “taking all the risk” end up doing so goddamn well, and the rest of us are locked out of it in the first place. It’s just abusive language we’ve all internalized.
Edit to add: ya know, it was probably easier to swallow and originated in the prior eras, where a steady paycheck was a safe and stable way to go through life. These days being an underpaid wage slave is far riskier than being any kind of investor. I don’t think “all the risk” is even meaningful or remotely accurate anymore.
I mean, “theft” implies depriving someone of something, to me. But I don’t want to bicker about definitions if your position is more about morality of taking something for free than about the definition of theft.
For myself, I’ll happily pay for things that provide fair value and a fair agreement / relationship. That includes donating to stuff that is offered for free - there are a handful of content creators and other services (Internet Archive, Signal, etc.) that I directly support, every month. And by the same token, I don’t feel bad at all about enjoying something, for free and against their wishes, from a company or publisher that only offers unacceptable (to me) terms.
To me those are perfectly consistent. My dollars go to individuals and publishers that produce the kind of media ecosystem I think is good for us. Because - we must be clear - it’s not a level playing field, and the shift away from consumer ownership is a plague of exploitation inflicted upon us. It’s now metastasizing away from strictly digital domains, now to physical hardware, which is outrageous. Roku, for instance, can update your streaming device overnight and force you to accept their new terms, in order to keep using your device. This is not hypothetical, it happened (may have gotten company wrong).
Do you think the companies enacting policies, particularly ones prohibiting ownership outright, are operating from an ethical or moral framework? I promise they don’t believe in anything like that. They screw us precisely as hard as the courts, and the court of public opinion, allow. And they’re always trying to move that line in their favor.
Why do you care about pirating? Who or what are you standing up for, I guess I’m asking?
Seems like the obvious joke to me too…