The writer of Hackers, Rafael Moreu, went to New York 2600 meetings and talked to various members of MoD (a hacker group which had a book written about them by a local New York reporter, Joshua Quittner, who later worked for Wired and then Time/Pathfinder if anyone remembers that).
The names and handles of the movie reflect this - Cereal Killer, Plague, Joey, Razor - all handles of local New York people. Phreak in a sense too. Some of the kids went to Stuyvesant high school, where scenes were filmed. The kid getting raided in his shower happened locally. The plant worker almost getting shot by a flare gun held by people trashing happened locally. As did other things.
Some other national things made it in, like the Hacker's manifesto written by an LoD member.
Some things were invented for the movie. There was no attractive 19 year old Angelina Jolie type hacking along with the boys as shown in the movie. These guys were not rollerblading through Manhattan together. There was no Cyberdelia nightclub everyone hung out at, although some of the guys might have gone together once in a while to the nightclubs popular at the time (The Tunnel /Limelight / Palladium / Club USA / Webster Hall).
LoD and MoD's heydays were more in the 1980s. By the first year or two of the 1990s, both were pretty much defunct, if my memory serves.
I was acquainted with several members of both groups, and I don't remember them really resembling the Hackers movies in appearance or personality. But I lost touch with them in about 1989-1990 or so, due to the next phase of my life kicking off.
In July 1992 five MoD members were charged with hacking, and they were basically defunct as an active hacking group after that. LoD was mostly defunct even before that, although the movie used the Mentor's manifesto. New York LoD members, or those affiliated with them, had been busted in July 1987. So yes, a lot of the 1995 movie was covering stuff that had happened from the 1980s up until mid-1992. When the movie was released, some of the MoD members were on probation and not allowed to associate with one another until probation ended. The busts, trials, prison terms, and probations were all happening around the time the movie was being written, filmed and released.
Should point out this is not the first time the BLS came under serious fire, politically. When the Republicans regained control of the Senate in 1995, they set up a commission (Boskin commission) that said inflation had been overstated, and henceforth cut Social Security cost of living adjustments.
Cuts will continue until the statistics improve and match the desired narrative! Wish that was a /s but it's just what's happening now and happened then.
In 2015, the Nobel Prize in Medicine was won by Tu Youyou.
During the Vietnamese resistance war, Vietnamese moving down the Ho Chi Minh rail were contracting malaria in the jungle. The Chinese were asked for aid, and Tu Youyou was tasked with assembling a team to help.
One thing Tu Youyou did was consult "traditional Chinese medicine" with how to aid victims of malaria. Most of what she found did not work, but wormwood did produce results. Tu Youyou again consulted traditional Chinese medicinal texts and they said wormwood should be used with cold water. The team extracted artemisinin from the wormwood in cold water, and a new (and old) way of fighting malaria was born.
> Most of what she found did not work, but wormwood did produce results.
TCM is interesting: There are countless different TCM preparations that do nearly nothing are can be actively harmful to the kidneys or liver, but every once in a while there is a a novel compound discovered in some plant somewhere that does something.
I can’t tell how much of this is because TCM has some treatments that actually work, or if it’s a case of a broken clock being right twice a day. I suspect it’s more of the latter.
Just because we have made innovations in the method of research and discovery doesn't mean that we should throw away everything that we had before.
Around me I see practices like "gratitude", "meditation" and "breathing exercises" get bandied around like they're some new profound thing as if we hadn't known about for thousands of years that have appeared in various guises universally throughout different civilisations.
Just because the metaphors and models of explanations could be flawed doesn't mean the effects should be thrown out
Edit:
I have a good friend, a scientist no less, who suffered from severe eczema and was completely let down by western medicine who was put through decades of progressively stronger and stronger steroids. Nothing worked. Eventually the doctors gave up and shrugged their shoulders and was advised to give "alternative medicine" a go. Desperate my friend visited a traditional Chinese doctor who was prepared to guide them through a rigorous exclusion diet while also preparing mystery herb soup and suddenly a lifetime of eczema subsided and became very manageable.
The older I get the more determined I find myself trying to glean the accrued wisdom of people who came before us...
"Around me I see practices like "gratitude", "meditation" and "breathing exercises" get bandied around like they're some new profound thing as if we hadn't known about for thousands of years that have appeared in various guises universally throughout different civilisations."
These have been VASTLY improved and optimized compared to their traditional counterparts. Evidence-based trials with brain scans, and other methods.
For example, achieving strong vagus nerve stimulation on demand to activate the parasympathetic nervous system could take years(or they might never get there) to learn for traditional Buddhist meditation practitioners, and nowadays we get there in a few sessions of EMDR therapy.
> Around me I see practices like "gratitude", "meditation" and "breathing exercises" get bandied around like they're some new profound thing as if we hadn't known about for thousands of years that have appeared in various guises universally throughout different civilisations.
Most people don’t care where, when, or why a concept was invented as long as it works.
Quibbling over who discovered it first or trying to drag the conversation back to who discovered it first is like the person who tries to claim credit for being into a band before they were popular: Nobody cares, they just want to enjoy it.
> The older I get the more determined I find myself trying to glean the accrued wisdom of people who came before us...
Going back to the actual article: There is a big illusion of accrued wisdom of the ancients in TCM that isn’t backed up by the research. There are occasional hits where a TCM preparation intersects with a truly active compound, but it should be raising red flags when TCM practitioners claim to have cures for everything and different TCM practitioners will come up with different answers for the same patient. When the first one doesn’t work they’ll have another answer the next visit, and the next visit, and so on.
The criticism is that they claimed to have the solution the first time, instead of only claiming that they will try something functionally random.
A methodical process and a random or intuitive process only look like the same trial and error on the outside, and only to the (probably willfully) ignorant.
The trappings and ceremony of a theory and methodology are not actually a theory or methodology.
It doesn't do anyone any good to allow any confusion of the two.
Trial and error is not reproducible. Lack of a unifying theory also precludes reproducibility. We know better than that and should push other methods to these kinds of standards.
But TCM practitioners of the past and present have "landed" on successful treatment that go beyond just placebo and throwing that out because of the differing methods used in discovery and delivery is a shame when the more opportunistic thing to do would be to isolate and identify why the thing works.
Better yet, understanding why TCM continues to persist for reasons beyond just "culture" and trying to apply them back into our own prevailing methodologies would surely lead to better outcomes
A lot of scientists dabbled into pseudoscience but that doesn't invalidate their scientific accomplishment, and their scientific achievement doesn't validate their pseudoscientific pursuit
I am sure there are some truths in some thousand years of research, ala "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater", but that doesn't validate the system or study as a whole.
The interesting thing is that I think WarGames was likely [heavily] inspired by Colossus: The Forbin Project [1], released in 1970! It too, holds up extremely well.
> flipping quantum coins...Newsflash: neurons and digital computers both have to play by the universe's stubbornly deterministic rules
I don't really understand what this means - you obviously know at the smallest level things happen by random probability - because you mention the quantum world - but then you say the universe is deterministic.
Bringing up 'Quantum' effects to somehow free us from determinism and somehow introduce free will, is completely false. Somehow using the word "Quantum" explains human consciousness is wrong.
A coin flip is still determined. You don't know which way it will flip, but also, you aren't deciding which way it will flip. The future is determined either way, determined one way, or determined the other way.
It does not introduce, but maybe the combination of both does (see Searle points in freedom and neurobiology). You also need to prove that the future is determined, simply assuming so is an error.
Computers can also include physics based random number generators so that's still simulatable. And analog computing also is possible. Quantum computing not really yet but theoretically possible.
Not sure if any other wizard hat things than those can extend classical digital computing
If you don't believe in God, actually you NEED to buy this, or buy into some other methaphysical eternalism that is as hard to prove as truly random events. The universe either started randomly or it was created, and the existence either existed eternally or it was created (both prospects are also problematic in some level, but at least it is something better than thinking you can not have a position on this and also assume that determinism is trivially true).
In 1940, over 50% met via friends or family. About 36% met at school.
In 2021, about 20% met via friends or family. About 10% met at school. Over 50% met online. So the majority of US couples are now meeting via profit-maximizing corporations. He has a 2019 paper on this (and it has only increased since that paper).
Interestingly, there was another big shift happening from 1940-1980:
- in 1940, the top 3 were: met through family, met through friends, met in primary school. In that order, but pretty much equal
- From 1940-1980, two of those three (family, primary school) trended sharply downward, as did "met in church", while these trended upward: met through friends, met in bar or restaurant, met as or through coworkers, met in college. "met through friends" was by far the most common circa 1980
- starting in 1995 "met online" sees a sharp rise, and by 2010 it has overtaken them all.
The only other category that was still on the rise after 2010 was "met in a bar or restaurant". Is that really increasingly common? I have a strange feeling that some of those are just people too embarassed to say they met online...
Anyway, my point is there was (perhaps unsurprisingly) already a big shift going on 1940-1980, namely that the immediate family, church, childhood friends became less dominant in people's lives and friends, work, commercially-facilitated interactions (bars and restaurants) became more central. Did we learn anything from that adjustment? Were people in the 80's and 90's talking ad worrying about this the way we're talking today about the way social interactions are replacing the "old" ones?
(also, the values for "met online" on that graph seem to be small but non-zero in the 1980s! I'd like to hear the stories of some of those couples...)
> (also, the values for "met online" on that graph seem to be small but non-zero in the 1980s! I'd like to hear the stories of some of those couples...)
IIRC Jason Scott's BBS documentary mentions this a bit. There's a couple that shows up a number of times that met on a BBS.
> I have a strange feeling that some of those are just people too embarassed to say they met online
Probably right. I don't really get the stigma, but I've known a few people personally who told the same lie and found later it was online. One in particular had a huge elaborate story about their bar meeting. His wife told me later one day he basically selected her from a website.
So like most questions, probably worth taking self reporting with a giant dose of salt.
Also interesting insofar as what "met online" means. Dating apps are certainly the most common, but one of my partners and I met on a Discord server for a shared interest, which is certainly "online" but not necessarily in the same context as "dating apps"
This. I have a couple of friends who actually met their partner on World of Warcraft in the mid 2000s. But I suspect it's a very small fraction of the “online” group, especially nowadays with dating apps being so prevalent.
I'd expect that the fraction is much bigger, actually. In mid 2000s the couples that met through online games were the "weirdos", "normal" people met online on dating sites. Today gaming is pretty much mainstream and while dating apps are probably a majority, it's now absolutely normal to meet people while playing games.
In many countries where dating balance (i am not saying gender balance... because it's not really about numbers of guys and girls but about difference in their interest in dating), is not as skewed as in the West, this is still the case. You can actually write anyone, even on a free version of a dating app or website. Girls' feeds get a bit spammy, but not terribly so, it can still work. I know it sounds crazy but that's an upside of life in the Eastern Europe let's say, or ex-Communist bloc.
Most westerners don’t understand that the modern “phenomenon” of incels is mostly due to shitty 80s movies that connected cerebral people to nerdy stereotypes.
Rewatch wargames and note how insane the kids skills are, and how this acts as something which makes the MC more interesting to the fairer sex. Compare this to today, where busting a command line out in public is more likely to get you arrested by some idiot dogooder thinking you’re hacking the airplane instead of acting as some kind of evidence that you’re intelligent and thus possibly good partner.
Meanwhile go to the third world where life is hard and stereotypical “jocks” or “bullies” are the poor, downtrodden of society. Often these societies love nerds and cerebral people, and physical prowess isn’t valued as much here.
John Hughes is the father of the modern western incel and all related phenomenons.
When an older, morbidly obese person is with a much more attractive and younger foreign person, you can work out most of the details in your head. Is it not more embarrassing to make up some Top Gun-esque story?
I don't know.
I met my first wife in person, second on Facebook(8ish years and going). I feel zero shame in the meeting place, more shame for having married the first. So yes, personally, I don't understand the stigma.
If I message with someone on a dating app a few times and then make arrangements so the first time I encounter them in the physical world is a bar where did I “meet” them?
The subjective answer to this question might be at least part of this statistic.
Also you may be underestimating the number of people who pair up as part of nightlife outings. Based on my many many outings in cities around the world in recent years it does seem at a glance that people are still engaged in the practice.
I'm surprised dating sites work well enough that 50% of customers meet via it
It’s not that surprising when you think of selection effects. Suppose you have a sack full of marbles. Half of the marbles are pink and the other half are random assorted colours. Now reach into the sack and pull out two marbles. If they match then they get married and you set them aside, otherwise return them to the sack.
It’s easy to see that it won’t take very long until hardly any pink marbles remain. After that it’s going to be a total crapshoot to pull out a pair of matching marbles. Maybe some more pink ones get added at a later date but they’ll match and get removed.
The fundamental problem with dating sites cannot be solved by any business model: marriageable people (or otherwise people who can form and maintain a longterm relationship) are removed from the pool of potential dates. What’s left are all those who can’t or won’t form relationships. These “misfits” (for lack of a better term) tend to get concentrated in the pool over time. Perhaps it even gets so bad that marriageable people give up and just avoid dating sites.
> The fundamental problem with dating sites cannot be solved by any business model
Well, it can be solved but not by a dating site (evidence: this was a solved problem in the past). But it'd have to be very radical compared to modern dating. Arguably the branding couldn't be as a dating site, but as a stable community where people don't get removed over time so the concentration of non-pink marbles never rises.
That is something like the old model that church communities would have used. The marriageable ones pair off, but they are still in the community of people talking to each other. New marriageable people entered the community, didn't feel overwhelmed or different and eventually pair with other new entrants. The business model has to be that drawing a pair isn't ever expected to result in marriage and is fun by itself but serious dates might happen. Then the system would be viable.
They probably have some internal churn targets to hit, else people will start to figure out that the app isn't worth their time and try a different one
It creates a much worse problem actually. Why have a committed relationship when you can always press a button to look at hotties and have a pull at the sex slot machine?
If they design the system right, their audience just won't marry or have long term stable relationships
Only the people that have really huge success rates, which is very small, and gets way worse as one ages. Have you seen the swipe stats from many Tinder users? What you describe is not a reality for even the top 1% of hetero male users.
I think committed relationships are on the decline more because of the change in how women interact with and are viewed by society, than technology. Each successive generation of women over the last several decades has increased their ability to earn an independent successful living, control their sex life without negative labels, and remove the expectations that their only value is domestic-oriented.
Where in the past women settled for a number of reasons, including economic and societal/familial expectations, they no longer do. And because women are much less apt to settle down, men settle down less too. More free women = more free men = less committed relationships. (assuming we are seeing fewer committed relationships - I didn't fact-check that)
Also, being in a relationship with a bad partner is worse than being in a relationship with no partner, especially for women who are in more physical danger.
Therefore, with increased ability to live independently, expect more risk adverse behavior, which means a larger percentage of the “bottom” of the dating market goes uncoupled forever.
Women claim this but the success of dark triad traits and the “I can fix them” meme imply that most people actually do want to be in a “bad relationship”.
I’ve heard women unironically say “I want him to fuck my life up”. Risk aversion is only a trait in the poor or those with significant trauma, which the dating market reminds us, are dysgenic traits…
I think it really depends on the people. The slot machine would always get more boring and meaningless as time goes on and if someone wants meaningful relationship because they find the slot machine boring, this is what they will look to make happen. Maybe it is for the good to get it out of their system faster so they know what they want and get something meaningful.
I can think of a few reasons why people want (either already or after enough pulls of the slot machine) a committed relationship.
Though to be clear, just because I think the other more stable thing is valuable to folks even with the availability of the sex slot machine, I still don't love businesses trying to push slot machines or any kind really.
Do people go on dating sites to look at "hotties"? I've heard there are better websites to do that, many free of charge!
(Not a rhetorical question - as a queer person who's never used a dating site or app and who's been in a long-term relationship (now married) for almost 8 years now, I really do have no idea what people do on there.)
50% of heterosexual couples meeting online is not the same as 50% of customers of dating sites entering a relationship.
It could be the case that say, only 10% of dating site customers end up in a relationship, and this 10% amounts to 50% of the total couples, and the math would work out.
E.g.: suppose the total population is 1000 people, 500 of which are on a dating site, and the total number of couples is 20, 10 of which were formed via the dating site and 10 of which were formed by other means, and 960 people are out of luck.
There is no shortage of potential customers, there is a shortage of actual customers. Anything they can do to attract more business helps them. So if they have tons of success stories they'll get far more business.
It would be different in a saturated market, where they might want to try to keep people on the site, but that's not the case here.
Marriage rates are also plummeting, so it's more likely that the divorce rate has gone down simply because people wait to get married until they've proven it works. A couple that cohabitates and then separates doesn't get logged in the divorce rates.
Marriage rate and divorce rate have plummeted since 1940.
Probably not much to do with electronic media there. A lot more likely that financial and social pressures are squeezing what were previously considered cultural imperatives. ie - church, marriage, home ownership, etc.
There were always a lot of financial imperatives to wed.
The point is that now the financial imperative is not to wed. ("Girlfriend get serious! Why marry some loser who can't even buy a house?" or "Bro what? Do you know what will happen if you get divorced?")
The financial imperative is not to go to church. Working on Sunday has become the norm as people are regularly expected to be available on the weekends. This is especially true in the startup or tech space. And don't even get me started on how workers in the services sector, who would in any other era be the most likely to attend church, get so few weekends free between their multiple jobs, that church is now an afterthought for them.
The financial imperative is not to purchase a home. ("Bro! You don't have that kind of money! And what if you have to move for your job?")
I think we have very different perceptions of the world, but I don't have much interest in having a discussion predicated on quotes from imaginary characters.
You take a morally superior position, and you are condescending.
As if discussions and examples using imaginary characters are somehow 'lowly', and can't be used as a fair commentary of society.
In comparison, Plato's works often feature dialogues where characters, including Socrates, engage in arguments, which present various perspectives on philosophical issues through fictionalized conversations. That style of writing and the use of imaginary characters in argumentative discourse is actually hallmark of Plato's work.
The OP's style of writing (who you responded to) is therefore not out of the ordinary; just because you disagree with his or her "perceptions of the world" doesn't mean you should put it down as unworthy of reply for using "imaginary characters".
I don't think OPs points were on par with plato, and neither do you.
I think that form of communication is indicative of poor mental function and inability to communicate. The world would be better off if everyone simply refuses to engage with it and ridiculed it instead of validating it with engagement.
An anecdote is not an argument, and an imaginary one is even worse.
>A lot more likely that financial and social pressures are squeezing what were previously considered cultural imperatives.
We are living the most affluent lives ever known to mankind, even so-called low income people. We all have more money than we know what to do with, let alone more money than our forefathers.
Rather, I think the drop in marriage (and by extension divorce) has to do with increasing individualism and jade-ism.
The more humanity (namely the west) advances, the more it is drilled in that all men are created equal with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. People are increasingly more concerned with living their lives the way they want to the exclusion of spouses and children if such things are not what makes them happy.
Combine that with the brutal realities of life, because life is fucking hard at the best of times (no matter how rich you are), and the media constantly sensationalizing on everyones' fears and anger aren't helping matters either.
Also as an aside and anecdata: I'm in my mid-30s now, not married, never married, and never intend to marry because I do not find it appealing at all. I can more than afford to marry, but I am far too busy with other matters more important to me and I frankly find marriage to be nothing short of a human rights violation anyway.
First the axiom so we're all on the same page: I truly and wholeheartedly agree with and believe in the notion that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights.
Marriage is many things, but chief among them is that marriage is an inevitable compromise of each others' liberties and therein lies the violation. Who am I to compromise my would-be wife's unalienable right to liberty? Who is my would-be wife to compromise my unalienable right to liberty? This is absolutely irreconcilable and thus I consider marriage to be a violation of human rights.
If we also were to have children, I/we would also be imposing my/our will upon them. I/we would be violating our childrens' unalienable right to liberty and potentially pursuit of happiness. I cannot accept that.
I am also of the position that if I were to get a divorce for any reason, I must question why I got married in the first place. Marriage is not a thing that can nor should be taken lightly; divorce is an out, but I consider the entire premise of marriage is that it is a permanent thing until death do us part.
As such, if we end up in an unhappy marriage (eg: constant bickering over the kitchen or finances) then this is also a violation of our respective unalienable rights to pursuit of happiness and we both wasted significant amounts of our limited time that each of us have in this world.
Therefore, along with other personal convictions, I find no appeal in marriage and have no intentions of ever pursuing it or finding myself in such an arrangement of my free will.
> I consider the entire premise of marriage is that it is a permanent thing until death do us part.
Right so you invented a notion of marriage which doesn't apply in the society you live in and then invented a problem created by that invented supposition.
If marriage is not some kind of "special" arrangement, why do we place so much value on the concept?
Marriage is clearly very different from and more significant than simple friendship or other mundane relationship arrangement, and everyone's reasoning as to why will vary depending upon their religious and/or cultural upbringing and values.
Personally, as I stated earlier, I consider marriage to be some kind of permanent-ish arrangement (and especially if children become involved). There is an artificial out (divorce), but as far as I'm concerned it isn't something that should be used with wanton abandon. Thus, I place a lot of weight on why I would marry in the first place; if I am going to divorce, I should not have married in the first place.
I am deliberately violating the "Do not let perfect be the enemy of good." rule precisely because I demand a would-be marriage to be perfect given how many human rights I would flagrantly violate. I know I am never going to marry with such prerequisites and I desire that, because otherwise I cannot live with myself.
If you have any worthwhile arguments to the contrary to bring to the table I am quite happy to hear them. My conclusions thus far are the result of many years of deep and thorough deliberation, but I am also aware that it is far from infallible.
> If we also were to have children, I/we would also be imposing my/our will upon them. I/we would be violating our childrens' unalienable right to liberty and potentially pursuit of happiness. I cannot accept that.
What? The only way to avoid mass human rights violations is the extinction of the human race in one generation?
No GP but I think they such rights cannot be absolute because the same right can conflict with itself.
Say it's the 18 century with slavery is common. The slave owners are depriving the slaves of liberty and happiness. But the deprivation of the slaves liberty brings the owners happiness.
If you cannot persuade the owners to stop depriving slaves of liberty, then there two options remain.
One, you respect the owners right to happiness. But at the expense of the slave's liberty.
Two, you use force to stop the owners from violating the slaves rights. But in doing so you violate the owners right to happiness.
What's the answer then here if there no options that do not harm someone's unalienable rights?
Simple: A man's rights end where another man's rights begin.
To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Going back to the subject of marriage, my right to liberty ends where my would-be wife's right to liberty begins and vice versa. Marriage is inevitably a compromise of both our rights to liberty. Thus, I find marriage a violation of human rights.
>To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness
Except you've chosen to violate the owners right to happiness by attempting to place limitations on the rights that were so called inalienable. What you think the limit should be and what the slave owner thinks the limit should be differ.
Same right, but in this case brought into conflict by disagreement of interpretations.
Second, what happens when the other side refuses to stop because he believes that your interpretation is wrong? What do you do then?
Two rights colliding is essentially an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. The two can not (should not) violate each other, thus one's rights end where another's begins.
Governments are also tasked with guaranteeing those rights, and those who violate another's rights are deprived of their rights as mandated by laws.
For example, a murderer (violator of another's right to life) is imprisoned (deprived of his right to liberty) and possibly even executed (deprived of his right to life).
Yes they can conflict. I chose slavery because it did conflict. 13 States left succeeded from the United States to form the Confederacy to protect slavery at the behest of their own citizens. And the remaining Union disagreed. Violently. The US Civil War was one of the bloodiest in it's history.
Even today. SCOTUS overturning Roe vs Wade and allowing States to prohibit abortions. A difference because of a disagreement on whether or not a human embryo is entitled to be treated as a full human being with all the same rights and responsibilities.
Hence the nuance. You can look at the same document that says these rights, but how they are achieved and what limits there are can differ due to differences in opinion.
Is that actually true? I read something recently (in an recent article in a major publication about how online dating sucks and people are getting tired of it), that the proportion is much lower. Like people put all this money and effort into dating apps, but must successful relationships still form outside of them.
"Online" these days more likely means social networks, games and other services where people with common interest meet. Meaning, you meet through your hobby, instead of a dedicated service for meeting or because you just happen to live in the same area.
Since around 1997 all my romantic partners did have a solid online footprint. However, I can't say I met any of them online. Every time it was 1) getting merely acquainted on a forum or in a social network, 2) some kind of offline event initiated by users took part 3) "oh, hi, are you <handle> from <site>?"
I don't think it may be counted as "we met online", and specifically I never had any meaningful relationships via dating sites/apps.
Take a guided tour with Clinton from Ngurrangga Tours as you travel through the Murujuga National Park. With the highest concentration of rock art in the world, rediscover the petroglyphs (rock art) created by the Yaburrara (Northern Ngarluma) people. The rock art has been dated back to before the ice age ended and is approx. over 40,000 years old and there is up to 1 million rock art images scattered across the entire Burrup Peninsula and Dampier Archipelago.
As you venture down the creek at Deep Gorge, surrounded by huge granite boulders and Currajong trees, marvel at the petroglyphs etched into the rocks, and gain an appreciation of the Jaburara Tribe’s self sufficient lifestyle. Shell middens provide evidence of their seafood diets; the granite boulders would have offered shelter from the harsh weather conditions; and the creek, now mostly dry, would have been their only water supply.
> What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence?
I didn't say humans didn't exist 20,000 years ago, I said there was no tribal violence. There's no evidence the Jaburara were organized as a tribe 40,000 years ago, although later on that may have happened.
Hunter gatherer bands. There's no evidence of any tribes 20,000 years ago.
> Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence.
There is no evidence of any tribes existing 47,000 years ago. Insofar as tribes, and tribal violence, the OP mentioned them, which is wrong in that time frame, semantics or not.
That is a statistic on one chart on that. For only those who are 65 and up, total spending of the top 1% drops to 17%. In the charts posted, from the ages of 19 to 44, the amount spent on women is much larger than on men (not sure why - obstetricians?)
Then of course, some people get cancer and some do not. With a normal age distribution of 18 year olds and up, it isn't surprising to me that very little is spent on the 18 to 30 year old men, and that one of the 65 and over got cancer and a lot of spending went toward that.
I worked with a guy who went to a public university - not a top 25 public university but in the ballpark. He was hard-working, smart and "got it", but he wasn't at the level of some super-geniuses I met coming out of school. He worked with us (Fortune 100, non-FAANG, non-tech, non-big metro) as a junior SWE for a year and did not get promoted as he desired. He jumped ship for a FAANG-adjacent company after a year working for us, and his TC jumped from <$100k to over $200k. Two years later he was promoted to senior and his TC is now over $300k.
He is smart but not a genius. He kind of knows what is going on though, he "gets it". Probably even more motivated than smart, but not insanely motivated. Motivated enough to learn how to get features done at a brisk pace, take ownership of his team's work, and to study for interviews. Didn't go to a top tier CS program, didn't come out of FAANG or FAANG adjacent, and probably took a detour working for us, but three years later his TC is over $300k. He also had the luck to jump ship before the FAANG layoffs of late 2022.
There is a push, which has been around for decades, to measure how effective teaching is for a school system taking in taxpayer dollars. This is measured via standardized tests. The tests are generally passed via testing and repetition. Often this becomes the metric for measuring teacher, principal, superintendent performance and school funding. So these authorities begin having the students memorize, do repetition and testing - and testing not to guide a student's progress, but to reward or punish them. The school authorities have the students due this to pass the standardized tests, at the behest of those who have authority over the school authorities and want measurement.
So then the question is, is this the best way to learn in general? You can read studies of education including John Dewey's from over a century ago to see that it is not. The purpose of the education system is not to educate, but to do this thing described in the first paragraph. Nowadays the public schools are contending with charter schools, vouchers and the like, so there's a more injection of profit, religious fundamentalism and the like in the educational taxes people pay than there was a few decades ago.
On the other hand we've butchered standardized testing so hard that people report high school graduates as useless. While testing may result in test-focused learning, not testing seems to result in... not learning at all. In the end it's hard to teach someone who's not interested and we have to decide whether we want to force them.
The names and handles of the movie reflect this - Cereal Killer, Plague, Joey, Razor - all handles of local New York people. Phreak in a sense too. Some of the kids went to Stuyvesant high school, where scenes were filmed. The kid getting raided in his shower happened locally. The plant worker almost getting shot by a flare gun held by people trashing happened locally. As did other things.
Some other national things made it in, like the Hacker's manifesto written by an LoD member.
Some things were invented for the movie. There was no attractive 19 year old Angelina Jolie type hacking along with the boys as shown in the movie. These guys were not rollerblading through Manhattan together. There was no Cyberdelia nightclub everyone hung out at, although some of the guys might have gone together once in a while to the nightclubs popular at the time (The Tunnel /Limelight / Palladium / Club USA / Webster Hall).