Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | munificent's commentslogin

> Do you think those tender feelings towards Google track some strain of values which Google still carries?

I suspect that it's largely just that brand reputation tends to be very sticky in the minds of people.

It's the same reason that Pyrex, Harley-Davidson, and Dyson are still high reputation brands even though the product they make today is tragically worse than what gave them their initial reputation.

(I tend to think of private equity as often existing as an arbitrage system to take advantage of the fact that they can buy a loved brand, slash the quality and increase the profit, and continue to sell at its original price based on that brand stickiness for a while until people eventually wise up.)


I agree with your take on reputation as a lagging indicator, and your take on PE. But a writer could also feel (if the reputation is truly out of date with the reality) that they ought to point out the disconnect, rather than triangulate between the two.

It may only be 1%, but that small fraction of users are also probably the people who sure as hell don't need even one more tiny thing going wrong in their life.

If you're using a decade old phone to sign up for a utility, you've got bigger problems in your life and no self-respecting person should be adding to them.


A decade-old phone was released in 2016 (yes, we're old).

React already existed in 2016, so did Vue and Typescript. Never mind good old JS.

I frankly can't imagine a device capable of supporting modern TLS stacks but incapable of supporting JS. Much less a phone, which in many countries basically requires LTE (and sometimes even VO LTE) support to function at all, due to the 2G and 3G shutdowns.


Median specifically avoids outliers at both ends of the continuum like that.

> So if you want to truly do something that no one has done before, do something obscure, do something time-consuming, do something difficult, and do something that has unknowns you’ll only resolve once you complete the first bits.

This is an excellent checklist for doing something novel, but it doesn't provide any guidance towards doing something valuable that's original.

I don't think anyone has tried to build an ocean-going floating platform for raising wolverines for the pet trade, and that certainly checks everything on the checklist. Likewise composing a seven-part symphonic cycle written for bagpipe, slide whistle, and djembe with aleatoric and audience-participation components. Or inventing a way to knit edible garments out of extremely gluten-rich pasta. Training ravens to play Roblox games.

But are those worthwhile projects? I suppose there's only one way to find out.


Actually knitting pasta sounds pretty worthwhile.

I want lasagna in which the sheets are actually knitted linguini. I think this novelty would be worthwhile. But would the Italians ever forgive me?

Woven would be much much easier.

I'm not Italian but I would help you eat it if you made a large enough batch. I'll bring the olive bread and herbed dipping oils.

Yeah, that's the main challenge in research. Once you get immersed in an area, it's not that hard to come up with ideas that haven't been done before. It's also not that hard to do things that improve the performance of some method or system, at least by a little. It can be fairly hard to do things that are both novel and actually useful.

(I'd give that symphonic cycle a listen though).


Read section 5.

"Table 1 documents that treated counties (those with >90% AT&T 3G coverage) are substantially more urban, White, Republican-leaning, and affluent than control counties. To address this imbalance, we apply the entropy-balancing reweighting of Hainmueller (2012), which solves for the entropy-minimizing set of control-county weights that equalize the treated and reweighted-control means of a specified set of covariates."


I took running fairly seriously for six or seven years. I never really enjoyed it, but I ran religiously every week. I went from barely being able to run 1/6 of a mile without walking, to being able to finish a 5k. I ran a couple of local fun runs. I was never particularly good at it, but it was a real part of my life.

Two years ago, I slipped in a puddle on my bike and wrecked my ankle. There were many complications. Four surgeries later and I now have two pieces of titantium and a little slip of ultra-high molecular weight polyethelene (very strong plastic) where my ankle joint used to be.

I can never run again. Technically, at some point when I'm recovered enough from my last surgery, it should be possible. My surgeon said, "if you need to catch a flight or dodge traffic, sure". But I can't ever go out and run miles. It will just wear out the implant too quickly. The plastic can literally crack.

When I was recovering from surgery #3, my physical therapist told me to start walking regularly and keep track of distance. The first time I did, I opened Strava. All of my old runs popped up. I realized with a shock that I could scroll down and see not just the longest run I ever did, but the longest I ever will do.

I have dreams sometimes where I'm running, gliding across the ground effortlessly and painlessly. Usually, at some point I remember, "wait, you're not able to run anymore, you must be dreaming", and that tends to wake me up.

When I drive around the city, sometimes I pass places that used to be on my regular running routes. I remember what it felt like in my body to pound my way down that sidewalk, over that bridge. At first, these moments felt like a stab in my heart. Like a little part of my soul was being ripped out. Over time, that sharp stab faded to an ache, and then something more bittersweet. I lament that running is no longer part of my future, but I am at least grateful that I did run for a while. That chapter of my life is in the past, but at least I wrote the chapter.

For a long while, I was afraid I had lost much more than just running. But it seems like maybe the chronic pain is better and I will at least be able to walk and hike and dance without debilitating pain. But the running is over.

Losing a capability like this feels sort of like a fraction of death. Like a slice of my personhood has been amputated. It's made me realize that for most of us, the final chapters of our story aren't going full bore until the last page. Instead, aging means incrementally giving up more and more ability to do things, and accepting that more and more of our story is written and less and less is left to write.

It's still a struggle to accept that with any level of grace. I get where the author is coming from.


I have arthritis in my right ankle now and walking more than a mile leads to swelling, pain, and random sharp pinching during some strides. Running sets it off sooner than that. The ankle always is visibly swollen, it's obvious there's something wrong, and after more acute symptoms developed about eight months ago after my first soccer action in about a year I finally got it checked out and diagnosed two weeks ago. I'm lucky in that I can still cycle for an hour or two on fairly hilly roads in my North Carolina town, and I've been enjoying riding in the Phoenix desert a few times while visiting family this past week. I can still do some weight-bearing exercises too.

My biggest regret though is that I may never manage to play more than a few minutes of soccer at a time again. I got back to Latin America in early adolescence having missed some crucial soccer years. I was soon a couple of years younger than everyone else in my grade, and P.E. classes were not very fun, it was hard to compete and I rarely got to participate in real action on the soccer or rugby field. In my late teens I started to actually develop some soccer sense and got a bit better. But student/teacher political strikes during the dying years of a dictatorship and upcoming return of my family to the USA brought me to the USA for studies, and I didn't play much in college.

After a few years in SF Bay Area I started playing pickup soccer and eventually got to play quite well , especially during a particular two year stretch. Then marriage, busy jobs, having a kid meant I laid off the regular soccer for a while.

And now, with a bit more extra time I could maybe spend playing I no longer can. I've never been on a team, never been a specialist at a position, never trained regularly. The doctor said maybe with physical therapy and pain killers I could do it. I'll work toward that.


One of my complications was severe osteoarthritis.

The injury basically tried to twist my foot off, a "tri-malleolar fracture with dislocation". Even after doctors reduced the dislocation and used plates to put the broken bones back together, the cartilage suffered too much damage and just withered away to nothing.

Arthritis is a miserable, debilitating disease. My understanding is that usually once the cartilage reaches a certain level of loss, there is a positive feedback loop where the remaining cartilage is under too much pressure to regenerate and it continues to degrade. I hope yours gets better or at least maintains.

In my case, replacement or fusion were the only options and I went with replacement (since fusion tends to lead to more arthritis elsewhere in the foot). Replacement looks like it will give me back almost all of the activities I used to be able to do, including most sports, except running.

Good luck. Taking care of a body is hard.


With respect, the author said his doctor told him not to. I am certain that the author and their medical professional know a hell of a lot more about what's a good idea for his body than you or I do.

When you are young and healthy, it feels like your body has no real hard limits, and doesn't define the boundary of what is and what isn't possible. But at some point, through age or misfortune, you will learn that, no, sometimes your body tells you "no" and you must listen.


There are amputees that do snowboarding with specially designed prosthesis and boards, so there is certainly a way to take load off weak knees with appropriate gear. OP is just, quite reasonably, not prioritizing this minor dream enough to invest so much time and money in it at the expense of other priorities.

I don't think you understood the point. If it really is your "dream" you adapt, as someone else pointed out, there's people without knees who snowboard.... there's a bunch of things you can do. But quite clearly, he hadn't even started on that journey, he didn't even know if he would have enjoyed it. it was a fantasy. Trust me, I get it, I have bad knees, but during my 40s my fantasy was to do parkour, and I did, I just adapted and got pretty good at it, now in my 50s, I don't do parkour anymore, but have a bunch of other problems and I still work out how to do the things I want.

There is a difference between coming up with some way to adapt your dreams to the limits of your body versus what your initial comment which was simply "That guy could go snowboarding, he just thinks the warning he got creates a risk that isn't worth it."

I think people are entitled to decide the contours and priorities of their own dreams. If snowboarding was the author's main goal in life and "snowboarding" for him was a loosely-defined enough dream to still feel satisfied by whatever accommodations his knees forced upon him, then, yes, he could probably still reach it. But not all dreams are created equal and we don't have infinite agency. We have to pick our battles and the author may feel that while this is a dream, it's not an important enough one to go through all of the risks or other accommodations needed to get there.

Or perhaps his dream is to snowboard in a certain way, and have a certain kind of experience that simply won't work with his knees the way they are. I saw a video once of a guy carrying his brother who had cerebral palsy through a race. It had always been the brother's dream to race and since his disability prevented it, that was how they accomplished it. I am absolutely thrilled that both brothers were able to have an experience that feels so meaningful to them.

But, for me, if my dream were to run a race, being carried wouldn't feel like accomplishing that dream. Maybe another dream, equally worthwhile. But if it's not my feet pounding the pavement, that's not my dream. Perhaps the author's dream is similarly inflexible.

Either way, after someone writes an article about learning how to accept the limitations that life places on it, it seems rude to me to just tell him he didn't want it bad enough.


thing is, he didn't accept the limitations, he categorically cut off his "Dream". The whole point is, if you are going to super rigid about the criteria of your "dream" then you are likely going to be defeated by all kinds of hurdles. You need to adapt. If at the first hurdle you give up, then likely it's just a whimsical fantasy, not something you seriously wanted in your life. To me, it's not rude. It is ok to give up on things like that if it's not really seriously what you want. Which is essentially what he is saying. I'm saying not to confuse it with the dreams that the commenter above is saying, things that he seriously wants to be part of his life. Not whimsical fantasy. For that, pursue it, adapt, change, find solutions, don't be rigid. Hence the problem with the term "Dream"

A doctor knows about enough dangers and germs to never let you out the door!

As much as the serenity prayer comes across as some tacky shit you'd find painted on a wall in that one handwriting font in a beach house in Florida... it's the greatest distillation of human wisdom I've ever found.

I've been in therapy many years, and you wouldn't believe how often it comes up and we discuss it in the context of some problem in my life. So much of life's difficulties hinge on the axis of trying to figure out where we can place our agency and where we should.


Exactly; powerlessness is a big source of stress / anxiety / etc, but when you truly accept that you can't for example change other people or things outside of yourself will never be exactly the way you want them to be, then you'll be a lot more at peace.

To phrase it negatively, it's a kind of selfishness / indifference. But it's not "I don't care", but more "it is what it is".


The difficult part is to also be careful as to not become one of those YouTube "stoics" who just stay in "I don't care" state for everything. We can't control other people, but we can try to influence them towards a better path if needed.

I see some people accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, but then have no courage to change the things which should be changed because they have no wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.


Spinoza has a much deeper and more effective approach to this, I found.

If you like this I highly recommend you read Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations if you haven’t

An easy read that dives into stoicism, a similar mindset, within the context of running the Roman Empire.

Great read.


The two people I knew who really liked the serenity prayer (and wanted everybody to notice) were assholes. It can mean something like "See, I struggle every day with important issues concerning my power, and, I'm wise about it too! Also I consulted God, turns out you have to put up with some things," which makes it into an excuse for being really controlling.

My preferred version: do what you can, don't sweat it.


> How did they rule out the possibility that the post-pandemic economic situation has had a greater impact on these jobs, leading to greater stress?

I only skimmed the paper, but I presume it is comparing remote workers to non-remote workers who also have gone through the same post-pandemic economic situation.


They use different industries to represent remote workers and non-remote workers. However the same economic situation can have very different effects on different industries.

I'm always surprised this topic comes up all the time and there's all sorts of navel gazing about economics and housing and other reasons people want to have fewer kids. It seems to me that the simplest and most likely explanation is:

Having kids was never a primary motivation. Having sex was. Kids were just a hard-to-avoid downstream consequence of that. Once you have the pill, which makes it much easier to have sex without creating kids (and in particular, which allows women to avoid having kids even when they are raped), then the natural result is that there are a lot fewer babies popping out.

Because for the majority of sex acts, babies were never the goal in the first place.


I don't think the data support the conclusion that contraceptives are the main driver behind the decline in fertility. Contraceptives have been available for a long time and fertility is continually decreasing even when nothing changes in the availability of contraceptives.

Also, data going further back show that fertility has been declining since before contraceptives were widely available. Sweden for example: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033535/fertility-rate-s...


It seems a natural consequence of the pill is going to be that in a few generations, most of the people will be of the kind for whom babies are a goal if not the main goal.

Thinking of the Amish, or Orthodox Jews, or Trad Caths, Quiverfulls, etc. If they're averaging 4+ and everyone else is down below 1, how quickly does the world turn over?


Yeah. I think there's a couple of reasons why people think this way:

1. There is still shame associated with wanting sex. We're not ashamed of wanting food or sleep, but sex, oh no,

2. People change after having children and it's permanent. They forget what they were like before. It's kinda like taking LSD or something. These things can fundamentally change you as a person.


There is abortion option. And adoption. But to me it has always sounded like that most make it work somehow. So once there is a kid economics can in many cases workout somehow. Maybe not optimally but somehow. With even more kids later.

This. Which is why evolution will work very rapidly to correct the blip.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: