Yes, in Ukrainian/Russian PRQL can be easily read as "prikol" (joke/gag/quirk).
But I guess the best name would be "perkele" (emotional, like "damn") in Finnish.
Well, doesn't porn-ish entertaiment fuck up ones reward system? I'm not talking of porn specificly, but about a range of products that turn people into "dopamine rats", constantly pressing a button for more bursts of novelty?
besides porn, things like facebook, tiktok, instagram, reddit... generalising, it's everything that acts as a button "gib me more novelty" that one can press as much and as frequently as they want.
surely, not everybody is hooked by these things, and it's definitely possible to use them without harm, but sometimes it requires training and (self-)awareness.
But every source of pleasure could create addiction, so it is not valid to point to a specific one, and the requirement of self control and gratification delay remains generally fundamental.
Not every source of pleasure is equally addictive by its nature.
However, I'm not talking about _addiction_, but messing with the dopaminergic system. It's, I'd say a specific kind of "pleasure" with particular mechanisms to trigger.
The problem here is not that a person "is not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to them" (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/addiction-support/addiction-wha...). The problem is that the reward system gets broken. If a person is actually addicted to instagram scrolling, like people are addicted to smoking, it just adds another layer of complexity. As I observing from myself, "checking stuff on my phone" looks like a bad habit rather than an addiction.
So, it seems you are saying that there exist products that, giving "pleasure upon command", make people akin to Damasio's rats - they would constantly go to the pleasure trigger.
But people are not rats: they are or can be made aware that crude pleasure is a negligible factor. Duties and other values count much more.
The dopaminergic system is inferior to judgement.
If there are issue in managing the dopaminergic system, the issue is cultural - and has to be treated in that framework.
It's like with the cognitive disaster in many medical doctors, that seem to equate "quality of life" with "pleasure" (in their own twisted ignorant subdevelopment): health itself has an extremely high value, crude veneers like said pleasure have not or can be plain countervalues.
Well, social networks and *-toks are also poisonous for your dopaminergic system. As well as certain classes of games, I guess here's a spectrum.
But the best option I see is to educate _everyone_ including kids about mental hygiene. Rather than enforcing unenforceable restrictions.
Lol. "Liberal" people create an echo chamber by eliminate opposing opinions and then are surprised that people elect far-right candidates.
> Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected
It wasn't hiding from uncomfortable things, opinions and people, that created the world where you can even think about women or minority rights, or even know how to write to express your opnions.
So this approach will not create the world you described.
indeed. This kind of attitude is contrary to what is needed to produce the sort of world desired.
The conceptualization of what fundamental even means is very much subjective, so posing such a condition to dialogue is, in principle, the negation of possibility of improvement on either side.
this is the core kernel of what a tribe even is in my opinion: pose a subjective condition, divide people based on it.
The subtle art of not giving a f** had a great chapter on the importance of deciding your values, that is, what's important to you. The parent advice clearly stated what's important: living in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected.
Clearly defined values are fine until we get more specific though. What values? Whose responsibility? And what's holding is back from achieving what we want even if our party is in charge? Is it a matter of excluding people who disagree with us? More money? Or is the utopian vision we're attempting not presently achievable?
So is an agreement on fundamental rights for everyone what you want to live your life on? Or do you have other priorities in the meantime where you can agree with people on more immediate matters?
Raising kids well is extremely rewarding. Plus its very hard. But those rewards, you can't find them anywhere else. That happiness and fulfillment, dare I say, neither.
I've tried it before having kids - had total blast in European Alps - climbing, alpinism, ski touring, skiing, via ferratas, paragliding, but also ie diving in exotic remote places half around the world. ~5 bigger vacations per year. Traveled all continents except Antarctica backapcking style, ie 6 months in India and Nepal. Life-changing experiences, truly, but that backpacking part was the key to its intensity.
I've met folks who had way more intense lives than mine, since I was still working 100% and did all this during weekends, vacations and after work (or in-between work for long trips). Mostly they were some form of mountain guides who traveled world off-season. But even those folks, when they see me now with what seems like well raised kids so far, damn are they envious. I mean life that you hardly see on some 'influencer' instagram, those folks have no reason to brag about it publicly to compensate for something bad or trying to milk users for money. And most of them ends up in parenthood anyway for better or worse.
All those experiences means very little to nothing compared to experiencing my kids and see them growing up. Yes the hard parts are very hard and you question yourself and your whole life, but the amazing parts... mere words can't describe them. They give life to one's meaning that nothing else does, not even close. There is nobility to take hits for closest ones you love, to endure hardships, it builds and keeps character strong. Overcoming all properly hard challenges does that, do it for 2+ decades and it shows.
I am not claiming everybody should have kids, far from it, maybe not even half of population IMHO (I know, not sustainable, but we have overpopulation now so thats an afterthought). Plenty of broken people around, either inherited mental issues or ones acquired during childhood or even adulthood via traumas or drugs. Some could raise kids somehow but most are bad parents and then it propagates further down the line.
What do you “enjoy”—and more importantly, why do you think you enjoy it? I suspect enjoyment is mostly socialized, and we enjoy or don’t enjoy what our culture tells us should be enjoyable or not enjoyable.
Prior to my dad’s generation, virtually everyone in my home country was a subsistence farmer. Most people still are. Are their lives less “enjoyable” than some childless millennial pursing his dreams of traveling the world?
I don’t think that, on average, the asians I know (south asians, to be fair) are less happy than the Americans I know. They just derive enjoyment and contentment from different sources.
I'm from a similar bicultural household as rayiner, though from comment history I'm guessing I come down more on the American side. I've got enough of a background in both cultures to parse out and explain the differences though.
It's not perceived as "wasting a life" or "not enjoying it" by the parent, and oftentimes not by the child either. Rather, it's different values, different time preferences, and different conceptions of self. Western cultures have a conception of self that is very rigid and individualistic. There's a hard boundary between your wants and everyone else's wants, and you're responsible only for your own desire. This is encoded in our structures of law, in contemporary business culture, in the concept of individual rights, in the goals of Western psychotherapy, and in the relationships between family members that we view as normal.
In most traditional Asian cultures, there is much more of a soft boundary between members of the same family. You are expected to consider the welfare of everyone in the family. And that leads to a sense of obligation between parent and child, and then between child and parent as they get older, and between sibling to sibling when it comes to dealing with the outside world. There is a comparatively stronger boundary between the family and the state, eg. many Asian cultures feel like it's okay to snub the rules of the wider society for the benefit of the family, while in American society this is considered grift, nepotism, and corruption.
Likewise, there is a difference in time perception. Americans have a hard boundary between the present and the future or past. This shows up in popular culture through lines like in Rent ("No day but today", "How do you feel today?
Then why choose fear?", "Forget regret, your life is yours to live") or through popular aphorisms to "Let go of the past", "Live for the present", "The future is yours to write", etc. Asian cultures often consider the past, present, and future as one: the past informs the present, which becomes the future, and the "you" of today will soon become the you of tomorrow. As a result, it is perfectly natural to preference "future you" over "present you". And that shows up through things like savings rates (where Asians are consistently higher than Americans), long-term investments, business continuity, and willingness to invest in family and raise the next generation. Denying present pleasures for future gains is not a lifestyle that they don't enjoy; it's simply being smart, and the enjoyment comes from the anticipation of the future payoff.
There's a good illustration of the difference in the two cultures from two movies that both came out in 2018/2019, Crazy Rich Asians vs. The Farewell. Crazy Rich Asians is foremost a Chinese-American film. When the grandmother (who is considered the villain in the film) smugly says "We know how to build things that last", she's exemplifying the values and time preferences of Old China. And the film's climax and resolution is all about choosing present happiness over an indeterminate future, basically a victory of American values over traditional Chinese ones. The Farewell, however, more closely depicts the web of obligations in a traditional Chinese family, and is comedic to American audiences simply because the farces that the family goes through to preserve the feelings of the matriarch make no sense to Americans. Sure enough, Crazy Rich Asians was a smash hit in the U.S. but an utter flop in China, while The Farewell was a sleeper hit in America but did very well with Chinese audiences.
The emphasis on filial piety in east Asian cultures is undeniable, but I think this thread is overlooking the significant complication that east Asian countries also have some of the lowest birth rates in the world. Americans have more kids than the Japanese, for instance--not fewer--and birth rates across southeast Asia are collapsing, including in China.
I am probably one of the very few people on HN who came from a very similar household to rayiner but descended from pre-1965 south Asians in the US so I can tell you that all his suppositions do not necessarily hold for that group
Stowed away in 1929 to NYC. A lot of Bengali and Punjabi Muslim sailors jumped ship there and in New Orleans to some extent (Google Fatima Shaik) and tended to marry Blacks and Latinos. On the west coast it tended to be more Sikh farmers.
Obviously. And much more leave on the previous stages.
Because academic science doesn't have scientific proof of existance.
People shouldn't stay there, because there are no anthro-/psycho-/socio-/etc- reasoning that this way of organising people to seek new knowledge actually works, and it's efficient in any way.
> This kind of sensational event is what social media was designed for
I agree with you!
It's much harder to do viral tictoks with harmed israelis, because they built a marvelous defense system, so palestinian rockets (or terrorists) just don't get through.
I feel like that’s a bit like saying it’s fine for an adult to kick a kid. The kid was asking for it after all, even if the adult was never in any danger.
So you say that palestinians as a society are politically incapacitated like kids, and should be governed by some external authority until their society matures enough to self-govern?
> Child protective services (CPS) is the name of an agency responsible for providing child protection
> Child
(c) wiki
Well, if you compare them to kids, doesn't it mean that they don't have the right of self-governance, as kids don't have full legal rights/responsibilities?
There should be a balance between workers bleeding dry in capitalism, and workers don't have (good) jobs because it's too much hassle with "regulations and labor protections", and is not worth the outcome.
Really, if in a (over)socialist country I have an idea to build my personal wealth, why would I give jobs to all these protected guys, if I can leave them jobless, and get €€€ using minimal team I can assemble. Ideally - being solopreneur at all.
> There should be a balance between workers bleeding dry in capitalism, and workers don't have (good) jobs because it's too much hassle with "regulations and labor protections", and is not worth the outcome.
I happen to know quite a few people from Germany. All things considered, there are good jobs and they have decent living standards.
> Really, if in a (over)socialist country
Germany? (Over)socialist? Are you high?
> I have an idea to build my personal wealth, why would I give jobs to all these protected guys, if I can leave them jobless, and get €€€ using minimal team I can assemble. Ideally - being solopreneur at all.
By all means, do it. What are you waiting for?
Fact is there is money to be made by employing these "protected guys", they are certainly not jobless.
(from what I researched) To the extent that Germany wouldn't allow me to invoice foreign company as a freelancer, because it's considered false employment.
The state is so nanny that wants to impose their labor protection and social security on people who visibly don't want it.
In other countries, I observe there is a kind of "social contract" (at least for programmers) to allow people work through business entities, pay less taxes and get less protection, if they're competent enough to make this kinds of contracts.
> Fact is there is money to be made by employing these "protected guys", they are certainly not jobless.
They are. Portugal and Spain impose a lot of socialist regulations backed by high taxes, yet they complain about brain drain (pt) and unemployment (es). People don't want to come and open businesses to these very attractive places for relocation. Instead, cold small Estonia gets their startup boom, surprise-surprise.
Somalia probably has no worker protections (it barely has a government), and it's not a thriving job environment.
If we are to just name countries without any criteria, two can play this game.
By your measurement, nordic countries, the Netherlands and so on should be depressing nightmares with hordes of unemployable people, given their strong labor protections. And surprise, they are not.
Golang _has_ sane error handling. It just considers errors a normal and expected situation.
When you perform a http request, and the result is successful you expect the result to be assigned a variable, right?
Then why would you expect non-successful outcome to be returned in a different way? Why is it different? Why do you unwind the stack? Something terrible happened? Definitely not, it's as real life as 200 OK.
For unrecoverable things golang has panics, and if you don't like the idiomatic way of handling errors, you can just throw them like exceptions.
But the correct and only sane way to do this is Either<Error, Success> that you can then pass on, map over both or either of the two, flatMap to chain with other Eithers, fold into a single thing etc etc. Not endless sprinkling of
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
everywhere (and no, those operations are not obscure, esoteric or difficult to learn or understand - they're the same for other types like Option, List etc and are trivial to learn in a day for people who aren't familiar with them)
+ not making the compiler distinguish between null and non-nully values (as eg Kotlin, Rust and Haskell does) in itself as well is inexcusable for a modern language
I agree that the type system should be better. And for some reasons, golang didn't even implement proper tuple types. However, now with generics, you can actually do Result[T] with all functions you described.
> in itself as well is inexcusable for a modern language
What language typically returns the `Either<Error,Success>` you refer to here? I get (and love) the idea but have never seen it in official documentation (sure I could go off the beaten path and implement in my language of choice).
Also, did you come up with this on your own, or were you exposed to it?
not as many languages as you'd hope unfortunately, but plenty do (see eg other reply you got, there are more still including F# etc etc)
+ other languages get close, eg Kotlin has nullable types (which is a poor substitute) and Result (which is also poor because it's not a true Either)
that said lots of languages these days have libraries that do it (Arrow, Vavr and countless others)
IMO the killer simple language that Go tries and fails to be would be something like a Kotlin+Arrow with heavily reduced syntax and features, eg
no exceptions (use Either or a correct Result type)
no loops (use map, fold etc)
no nulls (use a correct Option/Maybe type)
etc etc
= in such a language, we learn that methods return things, those things will be what they say they are (guaranteed by the compiler), they will tell you what you can do with them, and if a program compiles, you can be pretty damn sure it works as intended
insert "all the languages are broken, I should create a new language" meme here...
C# gets pretty close with NRTs, pattern matching, terse record declaration and task-based async syntax, lambdas and Result libraries if you like those. Also nicely builds to self-contained binaries, both JIT and AOT.
> Why do you unwind the stack? Something terrible happened? Definitely not,
Definitely do.
In Go we just have to emulate it, badly, by manually writing code to forward the error up the stack so you can finally top-level print “error bad thing happen” or maybe some unholy stringification of wrapped errors possibly collected along the way.
Knowing about South Korean work culture and years of cramming required to join it, what is the purpose of bringing kids there?
If a culture claims to be so hard-working, so smart, but fails to construct an environment where people would like to bring new people, it's absolutely normal that it is going to die out together with the carriers of the culture.
For all the pride that South Korea has around its successes, how good of a society can it be, if it is an abject failure when it comes to repopulation?
reply