1. 7

    It’s my birthday so I’ll be hosting a tea party and dinner. Then I’m going to do some biking. Maybe if I get some spare time I’ll work on my parsing tutorial.

    1. 2

      Happy Birthday in advance! 🎉

      1. 2

        Heh, thanks!

      2. 2

        Happy b-day!

        1. 1

          Thanks!

        2. 2

          hosting your own birthday party

          Shouldn’t somebody be the host and you be the guest?

          1. 7

            Think of it as localhost. :)

            1. 2

              If your the host, you can also control the experience a bit to ensure it will be great. Some might not want to leave to chance. On altruistic side, some people will enjoy giving something to others or putting on a show for their birthday.

              1. 2

                Eh. I don’t like traditional birthday celebrations. Some past birthday celebrations have included going camping with two friends, doing nothing, and having a birthday brunch potluck. This year I changed it up a bit and will be hosting a tea party, since I am the one known for being a tea-drinker.

              2. 2

                Happy birthday!! I love the serendipity of wishing a real-life happy birthday to an internet stranger. Have a great weekend!

                1. 1

                  Thank you!

              1. 1

                But I can’t talk while I am eating.

                On the other hand it’s very easy to have a clean hand while eating pizza. What you do is pre-tear your pizza into pieces and then fork them into your mouth. This has the added benefit of allowing you to accurately estimate the amount you are going to eat by seeing your whole meal at once, instead of shoveling pizza into your mouth one-at-a-time until you’re full.

                1. 5

                  While I appreciate the potential uses of this, I have to say that one of the nicest habits to build is paying attention to one’s food.

                  Food consumption usually comes in two kinds: Group - so, there are people around you to talk to while you eat Solitary - i.e. you are eating on your own

                  What I’ve noticed is that adapting my habits from, say, watching TV while eating, to simply sitting down, looking at my food, and eating, takes me from the frame of mind of food-as-sustenance to food-as-pleasure. What I notice is that usually if I watch or am otherwise distracted while eating food, I will tend to eat it very fast, which, (sure, while causing digestive problems) tends to make the food itself less pleasurable, and usually means I feel peckish shortly after, because while I physically feel full, it’s like my brain has not quite got the message. Whereas if I focus on the food, I am not just more mindful of my surroundings, but of the flavors that my food has. It also tends to mean that I feel fuller for longer, weirdly (as per the reverse of the aforementioned food-hunting). To me, there is a certain mindfulness about it, and it generally makes the days when I do it, more memorable and pleasurable for some reason.

                  Aside from the above, I’m really not able to describe why it’s a good thing, and why it feels good to me. But, I encourage the reader of this to try it.

                  I hope this doesn’t come off as a ramble, and I’m sorry for any errors in the previous text. I’m low on sleep and ‘spoons’ right now.

                  1. 6

                    My mom always told me stuff along those lines :) Regardless, the extension is not limited to that use case.

                    You could, for instance, setup a voice shortcut to perform a task in the browser that would usually take multiple steps. It can be intricate yet have a simple voice interface. For example, if you wanted to limit yourself on time-sucking sites like facebook, twitter etc. you could make a plugin that allows you to say “open twitter.com for 5 minutes” that would open a self-destructing tab on twitter.

                    Now, I don’t think that’s a unique feature in and of itself. However, the fact that there’s no complicated interface to 1) build and 2) for the user to figure out – makes it more impressive and useful IMO.

                    1. 1

                      I totally disagree with this. I see food as fuel. So I want eating to be as fast and efficient as possible so I can go do something else . If I can use my brain to do something else while my mouth chews, that’s even better. To spend my mind focusing on food is just taking a first step towards food hedonism. In a couple years you end up spending 4 hours at a $300-a-meal restaurant telling your table buddies how the 20g dish in front of your reminds you of your childhood summer in Tuscany.

                      So I counter-encourage people to not try this^.

                      1. 3

                        In a couple years you end up spending 4 hours at a $300-a-meal restaurant telling your table buddies how the 20g dish in front of your reminds you of your childhood summer in Tuscany.

                        Sorry, what? I really cannot agree less that that is the end goal here. Enjoying your food is something that everyone should be able to do, like living and working in surroundings that they find pleasant, dressing in clothes that are comfortable, etc. That’s like saying if I take a few minutes to really look and appreciate a sunset, after 5 years I’ll be chasing them for the purpose of doing professional photography. To be able to take pleasure in the world around us is something that, quite frankly, should be a fundamental human right.

                        So I want eating to be as fast and efficient as possible so I can go do something else.

                        If that’s the case why even eat diverse food at all, just prepare your soylent mulch and gulp that down.

                        Something I now realise I forgot to mention, but that is present, is that such meal times are for me an exercise in good mental health – mindfulness in any form is a way of calming the mind and body and engaging in the world. Part of the adjacent point is to avoid overworking one’s self.

                  1. 3

                    In other news, #1 “Paid desktop OS” steals obtains with your ‘consent’ all your data.

                    1. 7

                      Looks like a dream scenario for phishing, with the opportunity to create legit-looking domain names, plus the secure padlock right next to the address bar.

                      I’m curious what they were trying to optimise for when coming up with this.

                      1. 14

                        I’m curious what they were trying to optimise for when coming up with this.

                        Consumer lock-in is my guess. In conjunction with their other remarks about URLs, I think they want to make URLs unpredictable and hence scary, leading users to trust Google to tell them how to get to Apple’s website more than they trust ‘https://apple.com/’ to.

                        This gives them more power to advertise, more power to redirect, and more power to censor. From their point of view it’s pure win; from ours, not so much.

                        1. 12

                          I think they want to scrap the URL bar all together so you can only make searches and click links (which go to google AMP pages) googles dream web is just one big google.

                          1. 5

                            …so you can only make searches and click links…

                            That’s just catching up to what everyone is doing anyway. Even commercials eschew a domain name and tell the listener to search the company. Back to the ye olde “AOL Keyword” days.

                            1. 3

                              because the domain name system is broken in the first place.

                              it’s invented by network engineers for network engineers.

                              1. 2

                                This has been the case for ages in Japan now, where ads often feature a search-like bar and the thing to type into said search bar.

                              2. 4

                                This. My hypothesis is that they are deliberately trying to break the URL bar with “improvements” such as these so that they can later justify removing it altogether.

                                As much as I’m annoyed with Firefox breaking DNS, this is arguably much worse. And what’s said is that all of the other major browsers will probably follow suit because imitating chrome is just what they all do now.

                              3. 4

                                I’ll be shocked if they don’t replace the address bar with a search-only box.

                              4. 5

                                I fail to see how this make phishing any easier. Given an attacker own a domain, he’s free to use whatever legit-looking subdomain names he wants. And even if somehow an attacker took control of www subdomain of a target, user are so used to www being aliased to @, I don’t see anyone thinking they might be phished due to that.

                                I’m curious what they were trying to optimise for when coming up with this.

                                My guess is they are trying to rethink the way people navigate the web. URLs are coming from somewhere with quite different application and users. Maybe we can do better for the average user (People on lobste.rs are not the average users). Hopefully those small changes can be easily driven by user testing and UX researches.

                                1. 1

                                  A phisher who does obtain access to a domain can now quietly point WWW where they want and just one more thing will work out for their benefit. That isn’t a large difference, maybe, but could be quite confusing.

                              1. 1

                                I get that mental illness gives old mate a pass on the racist diatribes, but most of those “features” are really bad ideas.

                                1. 7

                                  As the article put it:

                                  Don’t write things off just because they have big flaws.

                                  That said, would you please expand on why most of the features are really bad ideas?

                                  1. 11

                                    I may be the only user of my computer, but I still appreciate memory protection.

                                    1. 5

                                      More to the point: Practically every, if not every, security feature is also an anti-footbullet feature. Memory protection protects my data from other people on the system and allows security contexts to be enforced, and it protects my data from one of my own programs going wrong and trying to erase everything it can address. Disk file protections protect my data from other users and partially-trusted processes, and ensure my own code can’t erase vital system files in the normal course of operation. That isn’t even getting into how memory protection interacts with protecting peripheral hardware.

                                      Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

                                      1. 15

                                        But that’s not really the point of TempleOS, is it?

                                        As Terry once mentioned, TempleOS is a motorbike. If you lean over too far you fall off. Don’t do that. There is no anti-footbullet features because that’s the point.

                                        Beside that, TOS still has some features lacking in other OS. Severely lacking.

                                        1. 1

                                          Beside that, TOS still has some features lacking in other OS. Severely lacking.

                                          Like?

                                          1. 12

                                            The shell being not purely text but actual hypertext with images is lacking in most other os by default and I would love to have that.

                                            1. 6

                                              If you’ve never played with Oberon or one of its descendant systems, or with Acme (inspired by Oberon) from Rob Pike, you should give it/them a try.

                                              1. 0

                                                If you start adding images and complex formatting in to the terminal then you lose the ability to pipe programs and run text processing tools on them.

                                                1. 13

                                                  Only because Unix can’t comprehend with the idea of anything other than bags of bytes that unformatted text happens to be congruent with.

                                                  1. 4

                                                    I have never seen program composition of guis. The power of text is how simple it is to manipulate and understand with simple tools. If a tool gives you a list of numbers its very easy to process. If the tool gives you those numbers in a picture of a pie chart then it’s next to impossible to do stuff with that.

                                                    1. 7

                                                      Program composition of GUIs is certainly possible – the Alto had it. It’s uncommon in UNIX-derived systems and in proprietary end-user-oriented systems.

                                                      One can make the argument that the kind of pipelining of complex structured objects familiar from notebook interfaces & powershell is as well-suited to GUI composability as message-passing is (although I prefer message-passing for this purpose since explicit nominal typing associated with this kind of OO slows down iterative exploration).

                                                      A pie chart isn’t an image, after all – a pie chart is a list of numbers with some metadata that indicates how to render those numbers. The only real reason UNIX doesn’t have good support for rich data piping is that it’s hard to add support to standard tools decades later without breaking existing code (one of the reasons why plan9 is not fully UNIX compatible – it exposes structures that can’t be easily handled by existing tools, like union filesystems with multiple files of the same name, and then requires basically out-of-band disambiguation). Attempts to add extra information to text streams in UNIX tools exist, though (often as extra control sequences).

                                                      1. 3

                                                        Have a look at PowerShell.

                                                        1. 3

                                                          I have never seen program composition of guis. The power of text is how simple it is to manipulate and understand with simple tools. If a tool gives you a list of numbers its very easy to process. If the tool gives you those numbers in a picture of a pie chart then it’s next to impossible to do stuff with that.

                                                          Then, respectfully, you need to get out more :) Calvin pointed out one excellent example, but there are others.

                                                          Smalltalk / Squeak springs to mind.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Certainly the data of the pie chart has to be structured with such metadata that you can pipe it to a tool which extracts the numbers. Maybe even manipulates them and returns a new pie chart.

                                                        2. 3

                                                          You don’t loose that ability considering such data would likely still have to be passed around in a pipe. All that changes is that your shell is now capable of understanding hypertext instead of normal text.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            I could easily imagine a command shell based on S-expressions rather than text which enabled one to pipe typed data (to include images) easily from program to program.

                                                      2. 1

                                                        But why do I want that? It takes me 30 seconds to change permissions on /dev/mem such that I too can ride a motorbike without a helmet.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          That is completely beside the point. A better question is how long would it take you to implement an operating system from scratch, by yourself, for yourself. When you look at it that way, of course he left some things out. Maybe those things just weren’t as interesting to him.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            You could do that, but in TOS that’s the default. Defaults matter a lot.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              /dev/mem more or less world accessible was also the default for a particular smartphone vendor I did a security audit for.

                                                              Defaults do matter a lot…

                                                        2. 8

                                                          If there are no other users, and it takes only a second or two to reload the OS, what’s the harm?

                                                          1. 6

                                                            Its fine for a toy OS but I dont want to be working on real tasks where a bug in one program could wipe out everything I’m working on or corrupt it silently.

                                                            1. 11

                                                              I don’t think TempleOS has been advertised as anything other than a toy OS. All this discussion of “but identity mapped ring 0!” seems pretty silly in context. It’s not designed to meet POSIX guidelines, it’s designed to turn your x86_64 into a Commodore.

                                                      3. 2

                                                        Don’t write things off just because they have big flaws.

                                                        That’s pretty much the one and only reason where you would want to write things off.

                                                        1. 14

                                                          There’s a difference between writing something off based on it having no redeeming qualities and writing something off because it’s a mixed bag. TempleOS is a mixed bag – it is flawed in a generally-interesting way. (This is preferable to yet another UNIX, which is flawed in the same boring ways as every other UNIX.)

                                                      4. 2

                                                        This is probably not what you meant to imply, but nobody else said it, so just to be clear: Mental illness and racism aren’t correlated.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          Whatever is broken inside somebody to make them think the CIA is conspiring against them, I find it hard to believe that same fault couldn’t easily make somebody think redheads are conspiring against them.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            You’re oversimplifying. There are many schizophrenic people in the U.S., and most of them are not racist. Compulsions, even schizophrenic ones, don’t come from the ether, and they’re not correlated with any particular mental illness. Also, terry’s compulsions went far beyond paranoia.

                                                      1. 11

                                                        This is shameful:

                                                        To Kaminska’s point, in April a once-shuttered coal power plant in Australia was announced to be reopened to provide electricity to a cryptocurrency miner. And just today, a senator from Montana warned that the closure of a coal power plant “could harm the booming bitcoin mining business in the state.”

                                                        At a small scale, heavy residential electricity users in certain U.S. locations where marijuana remains illegal are sometimes checked out in case they are running a growing operation. I wonder if this idea of investigating grid usage by crypto miners could be applied at a large scale, or are they simply too big, coordinated, and powerful to be regulated through anything but national-scale action?

                                                        1. 8

                                                          Mining Bitcoin or other crypto is entirely legal. So it’s just a question of the miners signing a commercial power deal with whomever sells electricity. So there’s no need for miners to use subterfuge like illegal growers.

                                                          1. 10

                                                            If anything, people who are illegally growing marijuana might want to disguise their suspicious power useage by pretending to be mining cryptocurrencies!

                                                            1. 5

                                                              There could be zoning restrictions, though I would guess you’d build the mine in a commercial area anyway.

                                                            2. 8

                                                              This is shameful:

                                                              What is the problem?

                                                              We already expend huge amount of electricity on distributing cat videos and movies of men in cape flying around blowing stuff up. How is mining bitcoin any less ‘productive’ than beaming photons into people’s eyeballs?

                                                              We already have huge established industry involving people betting on whether or not something will happen. Sports betting, futures market, roulette etc. If you want to save on some carbon emission, then turn off your computer and surrender your car to the nearest recycling plant. But you won’t because you think those things are ‘worthwhile’ because you like them.

                                                              Maybe bitcoin will be useless technically, maybe it won’t. This is just a decentralised R&D program and a gambling pool rolled into one.

                                                              The problem isn’t bitcoin. The problem is clean energy scarcity.

                                                              1. 5

                                                                “This is just a decentralised R&D program and a gambling pool rolled into one.”

                                                                Best, concise description of it I’ve ever seen. ;)

                                                              2. 2

                                                                There’s a pretty good study on the electricity/carbon burden of marijuana manufacturing in California.

                                                                https://sites.google.com/site/millsenergyassociates/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-up-in-smoke

                                                                1. 2

                                                                  It seems to me that electricity is hilariously underpriced, if the best usage anyone can think of for it is a sad desperate attempt to circumvent Chinese capital controls.

                                                                  1. 7

                                                                    Or… bitcoin is hilariously overpriced if it’s worth the electricity to make it?

                                                                1. 33

                                                                  I don’t really think that you should be allowed to ask the users the sign a new EULA for security patches. You fucked up. People are being damaged by your fuck up and you should not use that as leverage to make the users do what you want so they can stop your fuck up from damaging them further.

                                                                  Patches only count if they come with the same EULA as the original hardware/software/product.

                                                                  1. 9

                                                                    Sure - you’re welcome to refuse the EULA and take your processor back to the retailer, claiming it is faulty. When they refuse, file a claim in court.

                                                                    Freedom!

                                                                    1. 6

                                                                      This suggestion reminds me of the historical floating point division bug. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

                                                                      There was a debate about the mishandling by Intel. Also, there was debate over “real-world impact,” estimates were all over the charts.

                                                                      Here, it seems that the impact is SO big, that almost any user of the chip can demonstrate significant performance loss. This might become even bigger than the FDIV bug.

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        They are being sued by over 30 groups (find “Litigation related to Security Vulnerabilities”). It already is.

                                                                        As of February 15, 2018, 30 customer class action lawsuits and two securities class action lawsuits have been filed. The customer class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of end users of our products, generally claim to have been harmed by Intel’s actions and/or omissions in connection with the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. The securities class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent classes of acquirers of Intel stock between July 27, 2017 and January 4, 2018, generally allege that Intel and certain officers violated securities laws by making statements about Intel’s products and internal controls that were revealed to be false or misleading by the disclosure of the security vulnerabilities […]

                                                                        As for replacing defective processors, I’d be shocked. They can handwave enough away with their microcode updates because the source is not publicly auditable.

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          The defense could try to get the people who are discovering these vulnerabilities in on the process to review the fixes. They’d probably have to do it under some kind of NDA which itself might be negotiable given a court is involved. Otherwise, someone who is not actively doing CPU breaks but did before can look at it. If it’s crap, they can say so citing independent evidence of why. If it’s not, they can say that, too. Best case is they even have an exploit for it to go with their claim.

                                                                    2. 4

                                                                      I don’t really think that you should be allowed to ask the users the sign a new EULA for security patches.

                                                                      A variation of this argument goes that security issues should be backported or patched without also including new features. It is not a new or resolved issue.

                                                                      Patches only count if they come with the same EULA as the original hardware/software/product.

                                                                      What is different here is that this microcode update also requires operating system patches and possibly firmware updates. Further not everyone considers the performance trade-off worth it: there are a class of users for whom this is not a security issue. Aggravating matters, there are OEMs that must be involved in order to patch or explicitly fail to patch this issue. Intel had to coordinate all of this, under embargo.

                                                                      1. 2

                                                                        This reminds me of HP issuing a “security” update for printers that actually caused the printer to reject any third-party ink. Disgusting.

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          I had not considered the case where manufacturers and end-users have different and divergent security needs.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            It’s worth thinking on more broadly since it’s the second-largest driver of insecurity. Demand being the first.

                                                                            The easiest example is mobile phones. The revenue stream almost entirely comes from sales of new phones. So, they want to put their value proposition and efforts into the newest phones. They also want to keep costs as low as they can legally get away with. Securing older phones, even patching them, is an extra expense or just activity that doesn’t drive new phone sales. It might even slow them. So, they stop doing security updates on phones fairly quickly as extra incentive for people to buy new phones which helps CEO’s hit their goalposts in sales.

                                                                            The earliest form I know of was software companies intentionally making broken software when they could spend a little more to make it better. Although I thought CTO’s were being suckers, Roger Schell (co-founder of INFOSEC) found out otherwise when meeting a diverse array of them under Black Forrest Group. When he evangelized high-assurance systems, the CTO’s told him they believed they’d never be able to buy them from the private sector even though they were interested in them. They elaborated that they believed computer manufacturers and software suppliers were intentionally keeping quality low to force them to buy support and future product releases. Put/leave bugs in on purpose now, get paid again later to take them out, and force new features in for lock-in.

                                                                            They hit the nail on the head. Biggest examples being IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle. Companies are keeping defects in products in every unregulated sub-field of IT to this day. It should be default assumption with default mitigation being open API’s and data formats so one can switch vendors if encountering a malicious one.

                                                                            EDIT: Come to think of it, the hosting industry does the same stuff. The sites, VPS’s, and dedi’s cost money to operate in a highly-competitive space. Assuming they aren’t loss-leaders, I bet profitability on the $5-10 VM’s might get down to nickles or quarters rather than dollars. There’s been products on market touting strong security like LynxSecure with Linux VM’s. The last time I saw price of separation kernels w/ networking and filesystems it was maybe $50,000. Some supplier might take that a year per organization just to get more business. They all heavily promote the stuff. Yet, almost all hosts use KVM or Xen. Aside from features, I bet the fact that they’re free with commoditized support and training factors into that a lot. Every dollar in initial profit you make on your VM’s or servers can further feed into the business’s growth or workers’ pay. Most hosts won’t pay even a few grand for a VMM with open solutions available, much less $50,000. They’ll also trade features against security like management advantages and ecosystem of popular solutions. I’m not saying any of this is bad choices given how demand side works: just that the business model incentivizes against security-focused solutions that currently exist.

                                                                      2. 1

                                                                        I think you have to be presented with the EULA before purchase for it to be valid anyway

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        It’s funny, because I googled “why women pants no pocket” to figure out why this is the case and the first result says that it’s because men who dominate the fashion industry don’t want women to have pockets.

                                                                        Why don’t all the women who want pockets get together, start a company to make highly-pocketed pants, tap this unmet demand and make billions? You know, scratch your own itch and all.

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          Since when it’s that easy to start a company? Not any kind of company, a factory of mass production.

                                                                          That’s a very immaterial look at the subject.

                                                                          Our status quo is patriarchal. Besides an 8h job, which pay less compared with men, women are the ones that do the housekeeping and child care. Now women should simply start a factory to make these billions.

                                                                          1. -1

                                                                            Oh come on. There are plenty of women who own and operate their own businesses. And women are having kids later and marrying later, meaning more free time to start a company.

                                                                            And you don’t have to start with a giant production. In fact, men don’t start that way either. You start small and grow.

                                                                            And the wage gap has been debunked so many times that it’s absurd to even bring it up.

                                                                            1. 2

                                                                              Oh come on. There are plenty of women who own and operate their own businesses. And women are having kids later and marrying later, meaning more free time to start a company.

                                                                              And you don’t have to start with a giant production. In fact, men don’t start that way either. You start small and grow.

                                                                              The logic you are using is women should sacrifice even more of their time to solve, in local scale, a global scale systemic problem.

                                                                              And the wage gap has been debunked so many times that it’s absurd to even bring it up.

                                                                              It’s not absurd to bring it up at all, because it’s real:

                                                                              Gender gap per country, The Global Gender Gap Report 2017, World Economic Forum, page 8

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                The logic you are using is women should sacrifice even more of their time to solve, in local scale, a global scale systemic problem.

                                                                                Well, yes. That’s how businesses on average work. This is also how local change tends to go…ye olde “make a cup of tea instead of boiling the ocean”.

                                                                                1. -1

                                                                                  The logic you are using is women should sacrifice even more of their time to solve, in local scale, a global scale systemic problem.

                                                                                  Are women unable to solve their own problems? Why do you need men to solve it for you? Why do you think that men have some amount of free time that women don’t? The lack of availability of a product you want is not a systemic problem. Men are not keeping you from making this product in any way.

                                                                                  Regardless, women can use market pressure to solve the problem, if the demand is as high as some say it is. If a small business proves the demand for these jeans, the global retailers will quickly follow suit. Seems simple enough.

                                                                                  It’s not absurd to bring it up at all, because it’s real

                                                                                  I took a look at the report. The plot on page 8 does not show a wage gap, rather it is a chart showing the Global Gender Gap Index, an index which takes into account many more factors than income/wage. The index that you should have pointed me to was The Economic Opportunity and Participation subindex, described on page 5. From the name, we can already tell is is too broad to determine whether or not there is a wage gap for people doing the same job at the same level of experience. If we look at the definition of this subindex, we find that we are actually interested in the remuneration gap. However, the term “remuneration” and variations thereof are only mentioned in 3 places in the article, and there is no data on this gap specifically.

                                                                                  If we look at the page on the United States, we find a section called Wage Equality for Similar Work, which may be what we are looking for. This data comes from the WEF Executive Opinion Survey, 2017.

                                                                                  From the intro:

                                                                                  the Executive Opinion Survey is the longest-running and most extensive survey of its kind, capturing the opinions of business leaders around the world on a broad range of topics for which statistics are unreliable, outdated, or nonexistent for many countries.

                                                                                  So we see that this data is merely the opinion of the people who run these companies, and is not hard data (this much was admitted in the Gender Gap Index as well). If you want to be sure of this, here is link to the survey itself, which shows that it is only a survey of opinions. Check out question 11.18.

                                                                                  So I don’t think this report contains proof that men and women doing the same work at the same level of experience earn a different amount of money.

                                                                                  While it is true that the average man earns more than the average woman globally, this is explained by many factors, some of which are listed on the wikipedia page. Here is an article that explains how these various factors affect the pay gap. There are many others like it.

                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                    It is a systemic problem, because historically women have been restricted from economically dominant positions, for being women. The factors (discrimination, motherhood penalty and gender roles) in the Wikipedia article that you linked are examples of this systemic problem. But, I could’ve been more clear is that I’m not saying that women can’t solve their own problems, but that the first post “Why don’t all the women who want pockets get together…” has an intonation that completely disregards the responsibility of men and patriarchy in this. And put the whole responsibility on women.

                                                                                    I know the index is not only wage, but I wasn’t mentioning only wage in my previous posts. I agree with you this study is not the proof. But, it covers more countries than any other study that I’ve seen, especially Global South, which have a completely different reality than Global North countries, and why the “if you want to change this, you should just open a company that does the way you want” argument lack materialism.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            tbh TLD as a concept is as alien to end-users as IP address.

                                                                            people want to go to facebook, so they try facebook.com because .com is the ‘go-to’ for websites.

                                                                            Now whenever i want to order pizza i just google “dominoes” so i can sidestep the domain guessing completely.

                                                                            so google is a second level dns system and it’s how the whole thing should work in the first place

                                                                            1. 5

                                                                              people want to go to facebook, so they try facebook.com because .com is the ‘go-to’ for websites.

                                                                              Probably but in non US countries there is a mix of tlds used. About 50% of websites here will use the ccTLD and there is a good mix of .org and .net used as well as .org.au and .net.au. Also a lot of new websites are using .io and .tv

                                                                              But like you said, I doubt many people type domains names anymore and just search the website name.

                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                tbh TLD as a concept is as alien to end-users as IP address.

                                                                                I agree.

                                                                                people want to go to facebook, so they try facebook.com because .com is the ‘go-to’ for websites.

                                                                                … in the US.

                                                                                Now whenever i want to order pizza i just google “dominoes” so i can sidestep the domain guessing completely.

                                                                                You don’t search your app store for a “dominoes” app? 😉

                                                                              1. 41

                                                                                Now that PEP 572 is done, I don’t ever want to have to fight so hard for a PEP and find that so many people despise my decisions.

                                                                                I use Python, but don’t follow its development very closely and had no idea what he was talking about. Here’s a recent summary of the PEP 572 controversy for anyone curious.

                                                                                1. 8

                                                                                  Design choices where there are multiple options but none are clearly better than the other is where having a dictator is useful. You can sit around arguing forever whether green or yellow is a better color tone for the room, since it’s entirely subjective.

                                                                                  But even deciding what tie-breaker to use to end the stalemate is itself a never-ending process.

                                                                                1. 0

                                                                                  In a slavery, the ultimate threat is the threat of violence. You can beat a disobedient slave. You can beat the gulagees or the prisoners in reeducation camps.

                                                                                  What is going on here is that some people who have terrible starts at life, were given an opportunity to make their lives relatively better. But these opportunities are relatively worse from the position of a western developed worlders. So these westerners then complain about the from-their-view-poorer conditions.

                                                                                  Do abuses exist, yes. But I know a teenager who works at a retail store who’s not realising his full leverage as given by the laws. His parents also let it slide, because they think it’s good for him to learn ‘how it is like in the real world’. So from a full-on lawyer perspective, one could say the guy is being abused.

                                                                                  The workers have to work a low paying job with bad condition because her financial situation, the relative wealth of her birth country and other factors reduce her negotiative power. But despite any of that, she’s better off working in these poor conditions with low pay than she would be back at her village. She is better of being given this opportunity.

                                                                                  The labour of developed countries back when the countries were developing had to endure such conditions too. And their leveraged that to give their children and themselves better lives in time. Every society has got to go through this process. If you try to impose enforced better pays and conditions, the employers will move to another country or another labour pool, and these poor workers will lose their chance to improve their lives. The surplus of poor people will always ensure that there’s some people ready to be ‘abused’ for $2 a day, because the alternative is even worse.

                                                                                  1. 30

                                                                                    I think your comment could be a valuable historic source in the future.
                                                                                    It shows pretty well the kind of rationalization “western developed worlders” do of the oppression they foster and benefit from. Teenagers abused in retail stores learn “real world” just as girls that were abused in Nigeria.

                                                                                    Just because criminals do it, it’s not something we should teach.

                                                                                    In a slavery, the ultimate threat is the threat of violence.

                                                                                    Some consider tortures as a form of violence. And starvation is a form of torture, you know?
                                                                                    Just because it’s inflicted by a community instead of a deputed soldier, it does not means it’s less violent.

                                                                                    She is better of being given this opportunity.

                                                                                    You should really read more carefully.
                                                                                    These people pay for this “opportunity”. They literaly take loans on their house to pay for it.
                                                                                    And, it turns out, they pay to be enslaved. The product does not match the promises. They are tricked.

                                                                                    Because you know, when private people have the power to remove your civil rights if you don’t do what they want, you are a slave. And if they can remove your civil rights when you get pregnant, you are a slave. And they can force you to pay for a job, you are a slave…

                                                                                    Every society has got to go through this process. […]
                                                                                    The surplus of poor people will always ensure that there’s some people ready to be ‘abused’ for $2 a day..

                                                                                    Honestly I find this argument pretty disgusting.
                                                                                    Exploting people weakness just because you can is not something that have a place in a civil world.

                                                                                    As someone who claim to “fight for freedom”, you should really consider what kind of freedom you are supporting. The freedom of western consumers? The freedom of western IT companies? Who’s the freedom you care about?

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      It shows pretty well the kind of rationalization “western developed worlders” do of the oppression they foster and benefit from.

                                                                                      So how do you rationalise all the stuff you consume that were produce through this process?

                                                                                      1. 4

                                                                                        Creating a demand is not inherently wrong. How companies choose to go about fulfilling the demand is where the concern is. One thing consumers do have is the power to choose which companies they spend their dollars with. Some companies are better than others.

                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                          Why should I rationalise?

                                                                                          I actively minimize the blood footprint of my purchease. And I only buy what I really need. Often used.

                                                                                          Also I actively teach people to be “Ads Adverse”: the more people try to convince me to buy something the less I’m going to buy it. Culture, knowledge and critical thinking are the key to freedom.

                                                                                          Indeed each marketing campaign convey (at least) two message:

                                                                                          • one is specific to one product: you need this shit to be happy (whatever it means to you)
                                                                                          • one is general capitalist propaganda: you are the shit you own

                                                                                          Both are ridicously false! But propaganda’s goal is always to make the oppressed internalize the oppression so that they cannot challenge it effectively. As you can see in yourself, it’s pretty effective.

                                                                                          I do not rationalise the means of oppressions that oppress me, you and Malasian immigrants.
                                                                                          I study them. And I actively fight them through culture. I make them evident.

                                                                                          I do not think that the solutions to the bloody issues of Capitalism can be found in free market.
                                                                                          That’s groupthink. The solutions are in culture, knowledge, understanding.

                                                                                          Meanwhile I call people with their name, be it “murderer” at Uber and Tesla, “slavist” at Apple and so on…

                                                                                          1. 0

                                                                                            I actively minimize the blood footprint of my purchease.

                                                                                            Do you?

                                                                                            Because the very fact that you are capable of replying to me, shows that you have not minimised your blood footprint.

                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                              I know it might seem impossible to people used to represent all values through the same unit, but in fact you can optimize several dimensions at once.

                                                                                              Also, in a complex system you have leverage, multipliers and so on to consider, so that you can have a zero (or even negative) sum over a dimension while having non-zero magnitudes all over the other dimensions.

                                                                                              But if all this math seems too complex for you, consider I have legally free access to several internet connected public and private computers that I did not buy and I do not own.
                                                                                              I let you as an exercise to guess how it is possible… :-)

                                                                                        2. 10

                                                                                          many employers also confiscate and hold workers’ passports in order to keep them from leaving an untenable situation

                                                                                          1. 7

                                                                                            Work makes freedom - as you point out.

                                                                                            1. 6

                                                                                              This might be the cleanest Godwin call-out I’ve ever seen. I tip my hat to you.

                                                                                            2. 6

                                                                                              The surplus of poor people will always ensure that there’s some people ready to be ‘abused’ for $2 a day

                                                                                              I know that I won’t convince you to change your worldview by typing into a text box on a website where you have put your very worldview into your username, but please consider the possibility that poverty is intentionally created and sustained to maintain a cheap labor market.

                                                                                              What would that look like? Who would benefit? What would they say to keep it going? Does that imaginary world match what you see in the real one?

                                                                                            1. 0

                                                                                              Have you ever needed to publish an article in twitter?

                                                                                              1. 11

                                                                                                Publishing on Twitter is great. You’re forced to make every 280 character tweet stand on its own and support your overall point. You have to be concise, organized, and direct. And everyone engaging is also forced to be concise. It’s a great medium.

                                                                                                I don’t think this article worked out as a tweetstorm, but a lot of ideas do really well in that format.

                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                  If you find that imposing a 280-character limit on your paragraphs improves your writing, then impose such a limit on yourself while writing. However, I don’t see any benefit to actually using twitter to deliver the content. Indeed, this article is interrupted part way through by a discussion of the limitations of twitter:

                                                                                                  Sadly, this one is too long for a tweet…

                                                                                                  As with any rule guiding writing style, it should be possible to break the rule occasionally.

                                                                                                  Personally, I do find that this article is rather disjointed in places, with sentences that should follow on from the previous sentence separated into their own paragraph instead.

                                                                                                  (There is also the risk that any discussion about the article gets distracted by people like us arguing about whether twitter is a good blogging platform instead of discussing the content.)

                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                    If you know how to organise your thoughts and write well, you will do so.

                                                                                                    If you don’t, then you will instead just spew out useless deluge of words over multiple tweets.

                                                                                                    If you put garbage in a box and read it 280 chars at a time, you will still be reading garbage.

                                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                                      Given I’ve never seen you write a technical article, post someone else’s technical article, or comment on the technical aspects of someone else’s submission, I’m going to guess you have no interest or experience in technical writing. Once you’ve done some of that you’ll see why twitter is such a good medium.

                                                                                                      I used to think the same way you did about this, until I began writing myself.

                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                        This is appeal to authority.

                                                                                                        If your experience in technical writing shows you why what you used to think and what I now think is wrong, then why don’t you use your experience in said technical writing to write an explanation of why I am wrong instead of using secondary heuristics to explain why I must be wrong.

                                                                                                        Once you’ve done some of that you’ll see why twitter is such a good medium.

                                                                                                        Whenever I wanted to learn something technical, I look for an online article or a tutorial, or if more indepth, a text-book.

                                                                                                        Should I instead start searching on twitter for a tweet chain?

                                                                                                1. 16

                                                                                                  The underlying factor that caused the github purchase to be a problem was that github was free. As long as the service is free, then selling out is always a risk.

                                                                                                  Why not take the total server costs at the end of the month, divide by the number of users, and charge that as a monthly subscription to keep the lights on? If the system is even marginally profitable, that makes any kind of selling out (via acquisition or selling user data) less attractive.

                                                                                                  If the system is costing the administrators money, then they have a high incentive to sell out.

                                                                                                  1. 11

                                                                                                    Why not take the total server costs at the end of the month, divide by the number of users, and charge that as a monthly subscription to keep the lights on?

                                                                                                    Nah, charge them based on use like in mainframe and cloud models. That’s more fair. Safer, too, for the host. There probably should be a baseline fee that covers administrative overhead or at least contributes something to it. The usage charges go on top of that. There could be some usage that comes with the baseline fee, though.

                                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                                      That’s an interesting point, and I’ll have to consider it. Though, I don’t see the user base growing enough to make selling out a possibility. My philosophy is that there should be many services like this one to prevent any one from growing too large and making selling out a possibility (that’s why the goal is to make everything open source - if someone wants to clone Asymptote they have my blessing).

                                                                                                      1. 8

                                                                                                        I don’t see the user base growing enough to make selling out a possibility.

                                                                                                        I think the more likely case is it becomes too expensive and you don’t want to keep paying so the service shuts down and many users lose access to their email.

                                                                                                        1. 7

                                                                                                          You would be amazed how well a donation meter works.

                                                                                                          Have a monthly goal of expenses + overhead. Show it on the homepage. Near the end of each month, if the goal isn’t met, nag the users a bit. Give those who donate some flair or something silly.

                                                                                                          1. 4

                                                                                                            True. In that circumstance I would run a cheap ($2.50/mo) VPS to keep essential services running (such as email) while fundraising.

                                                                                                        2. 2

                                                                                                          Bingo! I’d like to see people putting their effort into distributed alternatives, in the same way that Peertube is an alternative to Youtube ans Mastodon to Twitter.

                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                            What is the fear with github being bought out? Is the prediction that there will now be ads on the site like source forge?

                                                                                                            1. 12

                                                                                                              Asymptote’s existance isn’t because of fear of what Microsoft might do to GitHub. I made it to test out a midpoint between large, centralized services and everybody self-hosting. I don’t think Microsoft will screw up GitHub, it’s just that the discussion around the purchase prompted this idea.

                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                There are many concerns but one obvious one is that they will integrate it with LinkedIn. Software is one of the only professions where you can still find a job without a LinkedIn; M$ will do what they can to change this.

                                                                                                              2. -10

                                                                                                                We can just make sure that the admins publish inappropriate stuff like ‘women are weaker then men’ or ‘women make less money because they make different choices compared to men’ on its blog every month. Then the site would be ‘unbuyable’ because of the outvogue apparent social position of the owners. The people in the know would know to ignore such posts, but the bad-headline potential of these blogs would poison the site against any future buyouts.

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  This is a rather sarcastic way of making a reasonable point - what sorts of rules about host content will Asymptote Club (or other similar “middle-ground” services) enforce, and how resistant will it be to social/political pressure to censor content? What if I want to use Asymptote Club’s gitea/CI service to actively develop machine-learning software that’s illegal in some jurisdictions but not others? What if I want to use their matrix service to host a misogynist chatroom because I believe that the accusations that the content of the chatroom actually constitutes misogyny are complete bullshit? If something hosted on Asymptote Club got into the news and invokes a social media shitstorm against it, how much can I trust that Asymptote Club will keep hosting it, and how much do I have to know about the personal politics of zebMcCorkle in order to ascertain that?

                                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                                    Sad fact is that these things being published even in jest still provides fodder to people who do believe this stuff and want to feel justified in their opinions.

                                                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                                                  I’m actually surprised at the overwhelmingly positive responses to this.

                                                                                                                  There are many weak points in this particular ‘moral’ decision. First of all, if one moral culpability transfers to anybody that one does business with, you are essentially incapable of doing anything without being implicit in all kinds of things. Everything you use has had filthy hands on them. Minerals from African warlords abducting and coercing child-soldiers. Oil from middle eastern regimes, all of which are unsavoury. Everything you buy is taxed by the US government, so buying a candy from the petrol station means im contributing to the drone bombing of people on a low-res screen.

                                                                                                                  Does having children protect you from criminal liability? Do we forgive criminals because they have children and putting them in jail would be separating children from their parents? If we do, this is simply discrimination against non-parents

                                                                                                                  And how much sleuthing must one do to protect oneself conscience here? If it’s just a simple google of whomever one does business with, how do you convince yourself that you are not ‘turning a blind eye’ when enough money is on the table? The alternative of course means that in every transaction one must also be a dedicated detective, making sure that the person who’s buying your bike on craigslist doesn’t actually download unlicensed music. Clearly this level of burden is not reasonable, yet the opposite is simply ineffectual and everywhere in between is just a tradeoff between the two.

                                                                                                                  The more lenient one approaches the illegal-immigration issue, the more you tip the balance in favour of people coming. This exposes them to all kind of abuse and risk. It also discriminates against law-abiders. Why should people who follow the laws get punished by having to wait years while those that do not can just sneak it and benefit from the infrastructure, culture and all the other benefits of a developed country?

                                                                                                                  If a hobo family squats on your house right now, and you want to kick them off your property, but are willing to keep the kid in your home so he doesn’t freeze to death, you are actually a war criminal according to some people here.

                                                                                                                  It truly boggles the mind.

                                                                                                                  1. 9

                                                                                                                    I think the argument is that just because you can’t prevent all evil doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to prevent some evil. That seems sensible to me. Certainly, it’s something I try to live by.

                                                                                                                    I do somewhat agree with the gist of your argument though. I find a lot of the moralizing and attention around this issue to be pretty inconsistent. But that’s nothing new and is true of a lot of other things too. With that said, trying to tell people that they should be exercise boycotts and be outraged in a properly proportionate and consistent way is just never going to go over well.

                                                                                                                    Harping on the inconsistency might seem like a trite affair given what’s happening, but it always comes back to tribalism. It seems inescapable.

                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                      Whether (any policy involving different treatment for carers of kids) is discrimination against non parents depends on perspective. Every person benefits (once, as a child) from them, after all - unless you manage to spring fully formed from the earth.

                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                        We are talking about benefit to parents not to children. While everyone was a child once not everybody will become or are parents.

                                                                                                                        You are confusing the benefit derived from being a child and one derived from being a parent.

                                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                                          I don’t think the two are so separable; I think it’s reasonably clear (demographically) that advantages held by parents typically accrue to their children.

                                                                                                                      2. 0

                                                                                                                        Your opinion is grotesque.

                                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                                          thank you for your well thought out and elaborated response.

                                                                                                                          1. 0

                                                                                                                            It is impossible to explain basic human decency to someone who finds the whole concept stupid. Your glib argument that there is no point in taking any moral stand at all because there is no perfection in the world is self-refuting. Your claim that not ripping babies from the arms of parents is “discrimination” against non-parents is ugly. Some people don’t have moral sense. Ok.

                                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                                              Your only argument is calling mine “self-refuting” and “ugly”. There’s absolutely no substance in any of it.

                                                                                                                              If you don’t like my argument but cannot logically refute it, then I think it is YOUR position that need a good reconsideration.

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                There is nothing logical or illogical about morality. It’s as logical to be sociopath as to be a decent person. But it’s telling that “libertarians” who find affirmative action to be the authoritarian bootheel of the armed state find lawbreaking by heavily armed ICE thugs in the cause of openly proclaimed terrorism plus enormously profitable no-bid government contracts for dog cages for human beings to be fair and reasonable. It’s almost as if your libertarian principles are just a bogus rationale for creepy selfishness and nothing like a coherent political idea.

                                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                                  find lawbreaking by heavily armed ICE thugs

                                                                                                                                  It’s not illegal to stop criminals from entering the country illegally.

                                                                                                                                  Additionally, if you allow people to bring in children to be used as essentially immigration hostage, then they will keep doing it, subjecting even MORE CHILDREN to the dangerous and inhumane condition of people smuggling.

                                                                                                                                  Don’t just consider only local effects. That would be short-sighted and stupid.

                                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                                    They are not criminals. Particularly the children are not criminals. Many of the parents are attempting to apply for asylum under US law. I love how you “libertarians” don’t give damn about rule of law or due process when you feel a little uneasy. At that point, you are on your knees begging the armed police, at taxpayers expense, to commit any brutality.

                                                                                                                                    Do you think people come over the border leaving comfortable homes? These people are fleeing the most desperate conditions. Our policies can make us despicable, but they can’t make parents not take even the slimmest chances to save their children.

                                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                                      The US can only take in so many people. There must be rules on how to choose who gets to go in. These rules must be followed, otherwise, you might as well have open border.

                                                                                                                                      Do you want open border?

                                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                                        There are rules. Those rules are not being followed by the administration. But again, it is striking how libertarians will find that laws like taxes to pay for health care are impermissable violations of basic human rights, while taking children away from their parents and sending them to dog kennels is apparently ok outside any framework of law at all. Great moral system.

                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                        Whenever I read about the legendary programmers and inventors, these people sought out programming by themselves.

                                                                                                                        So I don’t have much hope that pushing these things onto kids would give such good return. The top tier potentials will already find their own ways.

                                                                                                                        You don’t need to know how computers work to operate in a modern society just as you don’t need to know how a car works to drive. It’s good to know but not necessary.

                                                                                                                        Given the availability of computers, the extra ‘discovery’ of potential, I think would be small.

                                                                                                                        So the whole ‘teach xyz to program’ seems like a mostly cost-ineffective boondoggle to me.

                                                                                                                        1. 9

                                                                                                                          We can safely drop mathematics, physics and literature from school curriculums then. Most of the students aren’t ever going to be good at it, and talent will find the way.

                                                                                                                          Learning programming by yourself does not necessarily make you top talent, though we’d all love to entertain that idea. It’s certainly not worse with a self motivated learner who is actually aided by school system. Besides the “self learners” of old days didn’t come from Amazon jungle to a running PDP rack and started hacking. They still had the fundamentals of logic, maths and reasoning taught in the school.

                                                                                                                          1. 3

                                                                                                                            If school failed me back then the same way it’s failing kids today, it’s by teaching students idiotic facts beyond the basics of reading, writing and math. Introduce kids to as many matters as you can in such a way to cultivate curiosity and you’ll have won.

                                                                                                                            The whole ‘teach xyz to abc’ is ultimately pointless if what you’re seeking is innovation. It’s super good if you’re raising cattle-citizen though.

                                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                                              This seems orthogonal to what @varjag is and @LibertarianLlama are saying. Llama seems to be arguing that being great at programming is innate and we shouldn’t bother teaching kids programming because they’ll never be great because if they were great they don’t need to be taught. And varjag is pointing out that education, historically, has not been about making the greats. Whether or not the quality of education is any good seems quite different than the question if if we should educate.

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                I’m not responding to @varjag, although there is a relationship between what we both say. What I’m saying is, teaching programming for the sake of teaching programming is indeed pointless, but then again, so is pretty much everything beyond basic math and reading skills (then again, there’s the case of the enormous amount of functional illiterates so I’m not sure even that is technically necessary).

                                                                                                                                You’re correct, of course, both matters are vastly different. I think they’re ultimately connected, especially if you’re after cost-effectiveness, which I don’t agree should be the target of education, but that’s also another matter.

                                                                                                                              2. 1

                                                                                                                                “Idiotic facts” is a very curious term.

                                                                                                                                Are you referring to history? Facts about how society is structured and how laws are made?

                                                                                                                                The last time I checked our local education directives “innovation”was just one facet of the welll-rounded citizens it was aiming to educate.

                                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                                  My bad, I did not correctly express my idea. I mean every part of my education which required the absorption of data for the sole purpose of regurgitation at a later date. I’ve lived that through many different subject matters. If you’re just pumping facts into brains so that you get graded on the quality of your repetition, it’s not really productive, and the students end up losing much of what they “learned”.

                                                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                                                    This I can definitely agree with is not a good way to learn.

                                                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                                                              The great thing about this game is that as a child it’s just fun to put random stuff together and see a ball bounce around. It has high ‘sandbox potential’.

                                                                                                                              Although i could never figured out most of the puzzles past the early easy ones.

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                There’s basically nothing interesting here. You just change the last few significant digits of a number around until you get a prime. This is only fascinating in the same way magic tricks are, only to people who don’t know the trick behind it. Once you pull back the curtain it’s just boring.

                                                                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                                                                  What I don’t really understand is how Andrew has a comfortable standard of living in NYC on $600 per/month.

                                                                                                                                  https://www.patreon.com/andrewrk/overview

                                                                                                                                  I’m guessing that there must be another source of Zig donations aside from Patreon?

                                                                                                                                  1. 7

                                                                                                                                    Savings?

                                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                                      Oh woops, I misread the first paragraph, I thought it stated that Zig was supporting him entirely, when it’s actually about his programming supporting him.

                                                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                                                        Note that this isn’t his first attempt at doing this. But the project he was working on before Genesis didn’t find the same traction as Zig has. BUT, if I recall correctly, he also didn’t live in NYC the last time… Anyway, he’s got experience with living frugally, so I’m sure he knows what he’s doing here.

                                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                                          he extrapolated the donations growth versus his savings.

                                                                                                                                      2. 2

                                                                                                                                        What I don’t understand is if you are not working in NYC anymore, and only working on your own and getting donation, why doesn’t he move to anywhere but NYC to minimise his personal expense?

                                                                                                                                        I’m sure there are cities in the US with 80% the fun of NYC at lower than 80% of the cost.

                                                                                                                                        1. 17

                                                                                                                                          I work remote, and there are places I could move that are < 20% of the cost.

                                                                                                                                          My friends aren’t going to move with me, and I have enough money to live where I am. Why be wealthy and lonely?

                                                                                                                                          1. -10

                                                                                                                                            Didn’t know your city is the only source of friends in the world. That must be good for the economy.

                                                                                                                                            1. 32

                                                                                                                                              I know that this is very hard for some people to believe (seems to be harder the more western the society is), but some people don’t consider their friends a replaceable commodity. Not that I don’t want to make new friends, but these are my friends right now and I am more loyal to them than I am to a meaningless job or to money.

                                                                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                                                                Maybe because your partner has a job he/she really enjoys in this city? I mean, we’re lucky in our field to have a lot of different possibilities, in remote or not, mostly well paid. Let’s not forget that it’s a chance and not something everybody has.

                                                                                                                                            2. 2

                                                                                                                                              The usual reason is the significant other.

                                                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                                                There’s a shit-ton of them. Even Memphis TN that’s close to me with all its problems is low cost of living with all kinds of fun stuff to do. Just don’t live in or shop around the hood. Solves most of problems if you don’t have kids going to school or college.

                                                                                                                                                There’s plenty of cities in the US that similarly have low cost of living with plenty going on. One can also live in areas 30-40 min from cities to substantially reduce their rent. The fun stuff still isn’t that far away. The slight inconvenience just knocks quite a bit off the price.

                                                                                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                                                                                  I don’t remember the details, and I can’t find the link, but a few years ago someone did some research here in Berlin where they compared the cost of rent in more-or-less the city proper, and the cost of rent + public transportation tickets when you lived in the outskirts. It ended up being not much of a difference.

                                                                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                                                                    Well, if you don’t workin in the city and need to commute then you spend even less. Though OTOH, you get tax returns for commutes in Germany so probably the commute is not that expensive to begin with.

                                                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                                                      Berlin is currently the city with the highest increase in rent world-wide and a few years ago, it was unusually low.

                                                                                                                                                      Also, Berlin is hard to compare in many aspects, possibly because of a very unique city history.

                                                                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                                                                This is a thinly veiled ad.