4 ms·

this whole thread feels hella off topic to me. it's examining one particular end for doing good. lots of very small businesses exist jn america & many many many

this whole thread feels hella off topic to me. it's examining one particular end for doing good. lots of very small businesses exist jn america & many many many fail but many do well. many find bigger success. as for software, many of my favorite coworkers are self taught former art history students who picked up some skills over time. they're great, they had wonderful skills. absolutely, this is person by person. but i think as much is just luckkng into a condusive good learning situation, getting to see the good perspectives & not get bogged down with the small stupid tech battles that dot the programming landacape. not getting burdened is a huge pro career skill wherever you are, but definitely super important for most tech folks. the struggle is super real. but focusing only on the struggle, the difficulty; it disservices the potentials that do exist. there's a dual. everything is extremely hard & working towards better is precarious at best. the ways to fall off are vast. but let's not lretend that opportunity isnt here. not just in tech but in many ways to make futures in america, in many places. we can both acknowledge weakness & difficulty & struggle, and also accept potential. the two do not need to be so zero sum, only one can be true, in nature.

throwaway2331 5y ago
The point is that if there are people suffering throughout the world; and when one points to a very rare improbability as the "way out," while swiftly moving past the topic as "done and closed": that's a dumb take. Yes, one can go through hell-and-back, roll the dice, and pray and hope that endless struggle for a better life will turn out well -- even if the odds are awful. No, this should not be the only way towards a better life or lauded as "unparalleled social mobility."
- vinceguidry 5y ago
  > No, this should not be... There it is. You're being prescriptive rather than descriptive. We're talking about the world as it is, you're talking about the world you want to be. Only one of these exists. As bad as it is here, it's worse everywhere else.
  - throwaway2331 5y ago
    Having spent the greater part of my life trying to be an unbiased, descriptivist bent on being a realist---I've realized it was a waste of time; and I was a coward. Neither world exists. There is no objective observation. Our senses are limited, and our neurons filter through what we "observe," in order to create a cohesive story that doesn't disturb the one that's been continuously built all our lives. (Elsewhere, one could write an encyclopaedia's-worth of examples how our rational faculties are lacking in the absolute sense.) The only thing that is different between the two is their proclivity for (or lack thereof) taking action.
    - vinceguidry 5y ago
      You do you. But when you're talking to others people listen to you to the extent that your observations and conclusions reflect reality, not just ideals. Just explaining what should be is the equivalent of the "biz guy" who only has ideas, not the skills to execute. > There is no objective observation. This is a thing you can believe in. But if you do it will very much make it more difficult to relate. Striving to be objective is a very valid and worthwhile thing to work towards. Throwing your hands up and saying it's impossible is ultimately worse. I don't know you, but I'd be willing to guess that your "unbiased, descriptivist bent" was rather overly rational. HN gets hyper-rational and rewards that frame of mind, to the detriment of the community. What I mean by working to be objective is to work to understand subjective, emotional states of mind. Emotionally, we want the world to be a certain way and when it's not, we become irrational, in ways that are actually rather predictable when you can reflect on them. Objectivity is earned when you can understand not only the logical aspects of the world, but also the subjective ones too.

throwaway2331 5y ago

The point is that if there are people suffering throughout the world; and when one points to a very rare improbability as the "way out," while swiftly moving past the topic as "done and closed": that's a dumb take. Yes, one can go through hell-and-back, roll the dice, and pray and hope that endless struggle for a better life will turn out well -- even if the odds are awful. No, this should not be the only way towards a better life or lauded as "unparalleled social mobility."

vinceguidry 5y ago
> No, this should not be... There it is. You're being prescriptive rather than descriptive. We're talking about the world as it is, you're talking about the world you want to be. Only one of these exists. As bad as it is here, it's worse everywhere else.
- throwaway2331 5y ago
  Having spent the greater part of my life trying to be an unbiased, descriptivist bent on being a realist---I've realized it was a waste of time; and I was a coward. Neither world exists. There is no objective observation. Our senses are limited, and our neurons filter through what we "observe," in order to create a cohesive story that doesn't disturb the one that's been continuously built all our lives. (Elsewhere, one could write an encyclopaedia's-worth of examples how our rational faculties are lacking in the absolute sense.) The only thing that is different between the two is their proclivity for (or lack thereof) taking action.
  - vinceguidry 5y ago
    You do you. But when you're talking to others people listen to you to the extent that your observations and conclusions reflect reality, not just ideals. Just explaining what should be is the equivalent of the "biz guy" who only has ideas, not the skills to execute. > There is no objective observation. This is a thing you can believe in. But if you do it will very much make it more difficult to relate. Striving to be objective is a very valid and worthwhile thing to work towards. Throwing your hands up and saying it's impossible is ultimately worse. I don't know you, but I'd be willing to guess that your "unbiased, descriptivist bent" was rather overly rational. HN gets hyper-rational and rewards that frame of mind, to the detriment of the community. What I mean by working to be objective is to work to understand subjective, emotional states of mind. Emotionally, we want the world to be a certain way and when it's not, we become irrational, in ways that are actually rather predictable when you can reflect on them. Objectivity is earned when you can understand not only the logical aspects of the world, but also the subjective ones too.