I have time for them all - I have a debian workstation, an ubuntu server, I mostly work on my Tahoe macbook and I run windows 11 on my games box.
Windows seems like windows. I don't care. I'll keep updating to the latest so long as MS wants to give me free updates. My Mac desktop changes looks a bit on each new release but otherwise it's all entirely unremarkable. Maintaining my linux boxes is a little more involved, which is fine, I enjoy it and learn about the internals. SystemD works OK, I don't like its philosophy or the whole binary logs thing, but I quite like the service files metaphor.
The last time I got annoyed enough to change anything was Gnome 2->3 being forced by an update on debian testing, which is why I now run Xfce on any given linux box. I haven't yet gone to Wayland.
Maybe I'm just easy. Or maybe it's all the time I spent switching between Linux/Windows/HPUX/AIX/Solaris/whatever in the 00s. I just look for how I can get on with my day and then ... get on with my day.
And somehow they are allowed to continue operating, and we accept them saying "we couldn't possibly actually police all this content! There's just too much of it. We're too large for such concerns!"
I really wish the rest of us could turn around and say, to their faces "That sounds like a you problem"
Interesting, we could add in an 'arm' from the pancake local group, heading out from American pancakes, via traditional English pancakes (approx 1 cup of whole milk, 2 eggs, 3/4 cup of flour) to Crepes.
I guess the only difficulty there is we English don't eat those for breakfast, and really only make them on one day of the year. Which I missed this year!
Dammit, we're going to be having a belated pancake day here soon...
As an Englishman that has been transplanted to another country, I find myself making them more in Germany than I ever made them back home.
But that's because my wife requests it.
It would never occur to me to up the egg ratio so high to reach into that void though. My wife manages to mess up the proportions every time though, so maybe we'll unwittingly explore that region one day.
I'm also overseas these days, in Australia with my English partner, and have rarely thought of the English pancake in some time. Even when I'm making breakfast pancakes they're usually American style and I'm supposed to be watching my weight and cholesterol these days so that's become a lot less frequent too.
On the one hand, I'm sure that the post you're responding to is referencing many previous failed attempts at making non-addictive opioid painkillers.
But on the other, non-sarcastic side... if addiction is the only remaining problem with them, should we care that much?
I.E. if both the chronic and acute health risks are gone (which I don't think they are for a second, but follow me along on this little thought experiment)... does it matter quite so much? Clearly addiction, in the abstract, is not exactly a good thing. But if it's not coupled to risk of death it seems to me it would be a great thing to transition addicted people to, and take away some of the urgency of the situation.
I agree. I would say that I am addicted to caffeine. I definitely get withdrawal symptoms if I don't have a coffee. But since it is so accessible and there are no health risks, it does not affect me negatively to "feed" the addiction.
Not a great analogy. Caffeine is not as addictive as opioids. Opioids strongly stimulate the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, leading to intense euphoria, compulsive use, and severe health and social harm.
I admit that I don't know who Tyler Cowen is, but millions (billions?) of people have drunk coffee daily for centuries and if there were ill effects in the same ballpark as opioids or tobacco by now we would certainly know?
There is even a decent chance that the Industrial Revolution and the phenomenal wealth and progress it's brought was caused by the introduction of coffee to Europe.
A professor of economics has opinions on the health effects of an extremely common substance?
And I have opinions on nuclear energy - but neither of us are worth listening to outside our areas of expertise. Unless you can supply a reason I would bother listening to him as compared to an actual expert on the subject?
Because some dude with no health or nutrition background said uninformed things, that he isn't qualified to have opinions about, on the internet? Come on, now.
By definition addiction involves pursuing substances or engaging in behavior repeatedly despite negative consequences in one’s life.
Any behavior or substance that causes serious addiction is still bad regardless of whether it causes death or other negative health effects. The addiction itself inherently causes suffering because the addict is engaging in something despite the negative consequences in the rest of their lives. The negative consequences cause suffering and the psychological pain of wanting to stop and not being able to stop also causes suffering.
I know some other commenters mentioned caffeine addiction but nicotine and opioids (and also behavioral addictions like gambling) are vastly more addictive than caffeine.
Negative consequences from addiction can involve more than loss of money (although loss of money is still a significant thing of course.) They can cause damage to one’s career, family relationships, friend relationships and so on. Even if the addictive behavior or substance has no other inherent negative health effects.
In high school I had a really bright and motivated friend. He went to an Ivy League school. He became horribly addicted to World of Warcraft as a freshman. He spent so much time playing the game that he damaged his grades and GPA. He almost failed out of school. He had to make serious effort to stay in school. And he had to spend tremendous mental effort to avoid playing additive games anymore. That’s just one example.
> .. if addiction is the only remaining problem with them, should we care that much?
I think we should because it’s undignified to have people who want to stop taking them but are unable to resist the compulsion. I feel the same way about basically every addictive substance. Even if it was freely available and risk-free I still think that being trapped in a cycle of use and withdrawal is such an affront to someone’s dignity that we should still try to prevent that.
There's already buprenorphine and methadone. But, using either means some degree of responsibility, punctuality, etc. So unless you mean freely distributing it with very little process, it wouldn't change much.
Those, from what I understand, don’t hit the same and someone needs to be ready to quit to go on them, they help with withdrawal etc, definitely, but are not always successful as they don’t scratch the full itch. A bit like nicotine replacement therapy
But there’s a whole space of harm-reduction before then, which is where things like the Swiss program to provide heroin in controlled circumstances can fit in.
An opioid without respiratory depresses on problems could fit into that sort of thing pretty well.
I’m in one now. The problem here is meth. But then I’m not in the US and things are different in different places.
It was a thought experiment about addiction if the other negatives could be removed, I doubt we’re actually anywhere close to that anyway, but it might imply that zombification had been solved.
I mean I guess it depends on the level of use? Do you need to be nodding off, drooling on the verge of respiratory collapse to cope with the dread of your situation? (I feel like people are mostly only considering the physical reasons for starting opiates in this post btw). Or is it a more reasonable dose that allows you to participate in society unencumbered by your pains? (Which in any case is a slippery slope with long term use)
It does seem scarily likely, but he still has a few years to really screw things up before we get there. Fingers crossed.
Without a large-scale cock-up, I don't see Starmer as inspiring enough to stop him unfortunately. Lets hope someone else steps up to the plate with a bit more charisma.
It was a system built on sleight of hand, with a cover story just complex enough that it worked for a while.
How do you create a stablecoin? There are two ways in general. One is to have it backed 1:1 with a bank account somewhere that contains the actual currency it represents. In theory you then allow people to freely exchange back and forth between tokens and dollars. Tether kinda/sort works this way in theory.
The other way is to play games with algorithms and try to use the market against itself to create stability. Terra (UST) attempted to do this by running a complex scheme that leveraged a floating backing token, Luna, and a smart contract which allowed you to exchange 1 UST for $1 worth of newly created Luna. If UST starts to lose its peg and become worth less than a dollar, people buy it to exchange for $1 worth of Luna, sell the Luna for a profit, so arbitrage sorts the price out. If it becomes worth more than a dollar, you buy Luna, burn it to convert to new UST, then sell that for a profit, adding sell pressure and diluting the supply.
Even with the best will in the world systems like this could best be described as meta-stable, i.e. it'll smooth out minor perturbations but there are limits.
One major problem is how do you get Luna to be worth anything though? Well you offer inducements like a ridiculous interest rate, high enough that anyone outside the cryptocurrency bubble would immediately see a red flag, and which then has to be subsidised by ... creating more tokens.
Eventually the limit was discovered, Luna dumped massively and the whole illusion collapsed.
I made them go down markedly by setting my age to be over 100. Doesn’t stop some of the thirst trap ‘reels’, but all the “Asian women would like to get to know middle aged guys like you!” bullshit went away.
This reads as very naive now. As soon as a critical mass of people got online, and they wanted their governments to apply laws and regulations there, it was going to happen.
This declaration was written from the days when those who were interacting online were making a real effort to do so, who really wanted to be there, who were in a niche, who were observing 'netiquette' and other quaint notions. They were generally educated, generally technologists by profession or interest, and in those circumstances it's easy to see the utopia you have created and declare it good, with no need for regulation.
It's a little like when you have a small team of skilled, motivated engineers - work gets done to a high standard without the need for onerous processes. But when you start recruiting and growing the team wider, and bring in lots of juniors...
> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
That didn't turn out so well IMHO. People got on there and then ... yuck, they did people stuff. Harassed each other, commited fraud, blackmail and extortion, created and exchanged CSAM. Cyberspace has suffered from government and commercial overreach, certainly, and so much regulation has been commercial in nature rather than actually about safety.
But the dream of an internet free from any form of government regulation? Never could have lasted when everyone got on here.
And just look at our civilisation of the mind, in its centralised fortresses with its own aristocracy exerting control over what information gets fed to the masses.
And even on a technical level, in 1996 people still used to leave mail relays open to be neighbourly!
I think that it's more a case of "Before Trump started threatening everyone, there were problems with using US tech but we chose to ignore them because it was too hard to do anything about it"
To my reading the US, despite the 'safe harbour' assurances, has never been somewhere that European people's data should have been sent, because we know that the US requires its companies to give access to that data on demand, usually secretly. So any assurances that data is entirely confidential are meaningless.
It's one of the reasons I was so incensed with gov.uk using google analytics and Zendesk (even though Zendesk has its origins in Denmark, it's now based in SF). Their pleadings that 'data is anonymised by google' were not reassuring at all, and it constitutes a complete record of UK citizen interactions with their own government, handed over to a US company on a silver platter.
At least now people are thinking about this stuff a bit more.
Windows seems like windows. I don't care. I'll keep updating to the latest so long as MS wants to give me free updates. My Mac desktop changes looks a bit on each new release but otherwise it's all entirely unremarkable. Maintaining my linux boxes is a little more involved, which is fine, I enjoy it and learn about the internals. SystemD works OK, I don't like its philosophy or the whole binary logs thing, but I quite like the service files metaphor.
The last time I got annoyed enough to change anything was Gnome 2->3 being forced by an update on debian testing, which is why I now run Xfce on any given linux box. I haven't yet gone to Wayland.
Maybe I'm just easy. Or maybe it's all the time I spent switching between Linux/Windows/HPUX/AIX/Solaris/whatever in the 00s. I just look for how I can get on with my day and then ... get on with my day.
reply