I have bad news for you: for the majority of the population mental effort was always a foreign concept. That's exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.
Not sure if always but probably there's a rise of anti-intellectualism in general since I'd say the 2000s. I remember being amazed by how intelligent adults were when I was little. Always doing cross-words, sudoku, reading books, discussing the classics, etc. But now those same adults don't read anything anymore, and just spend their time watching netflix on bed. The same adults that used to correct my vocabulary, grammar and ortography, somehow forgot the meaning of slightly obscure words and don't remember if a certain word was written with an "s" or "c" for example.
I think the anti-intellectualism crisis gets mischaracterized. Common rejection of experts, academia, and empirical findings is certainly a part of it, but I tend to see more of an issue with targeted, self-serving ignorance, particularly among the elite.
You have extremely intelligent and influential people balking at, say, the undeniable net benefits of universal healthcare, renewable energy investment, and cash payment UBI.
Worse, they use their intelligence to attack interventions that run against their preconceived notions. Milton Friedman was not an idiot, and yet he and his acolytes did (and do) untold damage in anti-intellectual perpetuation of their outmoded ideas.
The common thread between that and skipping conversation for Netflix is disengagement with cognitive load that doesn't immediately benefit you. They both suck, but I think that one hurts more, and hurts more.
This second thing (either slightly different from anti-intellectualism or maybe a different form of it$l) is quite odd. I wonder where it comes from. Sometimes it feels like we have a strong bias toward surprising effects, to the point where we’ll start treating the first “possible, counter intuitive hypothesis” as if it ought to be the default assumption. I wonder to what extent that’s a natural thing, or to what extent it is the result of consuming pop-sci content that has to start with “Rebel scientist overturns conventional wisdom…”
This is the anti-intellectualism I'm talking about. You're disagreeing based on vibes and not facts. Disagreement shouldn't even come into the conversation; falsify the net positive effects.
The research is clear that most of the negative effects that most expect cash payment UBI to have don't ever actually appear. Employment goes up (except where recipients use the flexibility to return to school), productivity goes up; the money doesn't get "wasted" on drugs, and it doesn't pump landlord pockets. Giving people the money necessary to participate in the economy increases participation in the economy.
No, I'm not disagreeing based on vibes. I'm disagreeing based on my deep understanding of business and economics.
You're assuming you already know what my objections are and defending against them, when I haven't even said anything specific. Now _that_ is anti-intellectual.
The research isn't clear. It's near impossible to model the effect of UBI on the population at large by running a study with N people who know they're going back to normal at the end of the study.
Many have attempted to "give people money" before. It has invariably failed and resulted in inflation.
I know what the common objections are, and I actually addressed the one you mention: in actual UBI pilot programs, there was no resultant inflation.
If you have objections that weren't among the ones stated earlier, you can state them now. If you think that there are better examples of the results likely to be produced by a non-pilot UBI program, you should detail their circumstances and how they're more applicable than the pilot programs, instead of waving vaguely at instances where "many have attempted to 'give people money' before", as if that's a panacea. Because it's not; it's precisely the vibes-based anti-intellectualism I spoke of.
The issue is that you probably can't, because UBI's efficacious nature has been proven rigorously. It would be nice if we could just get on with implementing it.
I don't think that's true. Even if you think about what was considered junk entertainment decades ago, they still required much more cognitive effort.
Reading about a celebrity breakup in a gossip magazine requires more cognitive effort than hearing about the same breakup in a gossip TikTok:
-You consumed the thing for minutes at a time vs. seconds at a time and your brain had to actively decipher something, not just passively perceive.
-You had to read and couldn't do it while also doing something else, which meant you were more focused.
-You couldn't swipe in a split-second and have another equally stimulating thing that might be completely different, which meant you were more intentional about your mental context.
The medium in which we consume something absolutely matters, independent of what we decide to consume.
I mean, I’d argue that the overwhelming majority of the populous is not doing physical activity as they should. Even in a future with gym “for the mind”, I also assume attendance to be low.
We have 'gym for the mind' now in the form of puzzles (eg crosswords, quizes). It's a different sort of complexity to writing assembly or proving mathematical identities ... most people weren't doing those things though. I'm more concerned that as a species rigorous education is giving way to machine-learning.
The problem is they nerfed 5.5 about a month ago. The change was immediately visible to me: context compacting started to happen about 3x as frequently.
I think 5.6 is still not even close to 5.5 xhigh pre-nerf.
Absolutely, think "lick" vs "leak". I think the author means Hungarian maybe uses very similar looking letters to denote this (ie "lik" and "lík").
In Hungarian also every vowel comes in pairs of short-long: a-á (what vs high),
e-é (ever vs eight), "o-ó" (moss vs most), "u-ú" (put vs you), "ö-ő" (fur vs ... well long version has no English equivalent I think but German does: schön).
"Hungarian has seven pairs of corresponding short and long vowels. Their phonetic values do not exactly match up with each other, so ⟨e⟩ represents /ɛ/ and ⟨é⟩ represents /eː/; likewise, ⟨a⟩ represents /ɒ/ while ⟨á⟩ represents /aː/.[14] For the other pairs, the short vowels are slightly lower and more central, and the long vowels more peripheral."
Typically, when people talk about "long" and "short" vowels they are referring to a combination of duration and pronunciation (e.g. English "bat" vs. "bate"), and that appears to be the case here as well. If you are interpreting the terms differently, I'm not sure what sense you have in mind.
> Typically, when people talk about "long" and "short" vowels they are referring to a combination of duration and pronunciation (e.g. English "bat" vs. "bate"), and that appears to be the case here as well.
Finnish vowels and most Hungarian vowels come in short-long pairs that
- only their lengths differ, their pronunciations do not (meaning: IPA denotes them with the same letter but with or without a colon)
- their lengths are *phonemic*, that is they are *said to be* different phonemes, they are *perceived as* different phonemes, and there are example words that differ only at them
You can observe this property in the table I've linked for i, o, ö, u, ü [0]. You can find minimal pairs for them at [1]. (Note that [1] groups these vowel pairs as "Vowels with length difference: I – Í | O – Ó | Ö – Ő | U – Ú | Ü – Ű" which does not include A - Á and E - É.)
A-á and e-é are not such pairs. They differ in pronunciation (see the IPA in [0]), and their lengths, while are somewhat defined, never contrast (no minimal pairs for them). Also you can pronounce any of these four with arbitrary length, it will stay the same phoneme.
edit: I find your previous quote 'misleading'. I would say 'wrong', but it avoids to say anything factual. At least in out of context--the rest of the wiki page clarifies everything.
Your position sounds cogent and may well be a more accurate description of Hungarian (e.g. that its long/short vowels are more like Latin than English). I don't know Hungarian, so I can't say.
The rest of this thread is consistent with people assuming the broader definition of long/short.
I can imagine that happening when the motivation is external (praise).
When I write open-source it's because I have to write it out of myself.
Do I expect praise, kudos, fame, whatever? I do and that happens, I have been hired countless of times because of open-source. Even my friends (!) have been hired because of open-source stuff I wrote and they contributed to.
But the main motivation is internal - I just have to see it take shape. Like a writer who can't resist painting or a writer who can't stop writing.
Do I have regrets still? Yeah because I could have used the time for better things. But that can be said about any hobby.
After some 12+ years of collecting microservices platform ideas in my head and implementing them at various companies and open-source projects, I decided to create a system that contains all of them.
1Backend is the result. Mostly built it for myself so I have a foundation to build projects on but I'd love if others would also use it!
I think the idea is fairly cool, although it's hard to come up with a way to judge contributions. How would you solve the legal part? In the end a business entity would still need to own things.
Would you perhaps sync ownership from time to time from the DAO to the real world?
I think that makes sense, AI could be used to evaluate and score the importance of contributions imho. In fact this is probably a business idea in itself...
I'm working on a few closed source projects that are all built on https://github.com/1backend/1backend, my dream microservices platform I've had in mind for 12 years before starting to implement it.
On the frontend I'm rather happy with Angular but backend-wise I was never really happy. So it was time to build it. Been developing it for more than a year now.
If anyone is reading from YC, I'm happy to review their submissions, I was perhaps the first who raised concerns and was on top of the thread with my comment.
I haven't read the details or watched the video, but it does sound like you noticed something that should not have been there.
I noticed that your page says this:
> New: the thread "Tell HN: Y Combinator backing AI company to abuse factory workers" on Hacker News got removed from the front page despite having 242 points.
The thread fell in rank because it set off a software penalty called the flamewar detector. We haven't taken any moderator action or touched it in any way. Our usual practice is to downweight shallow outrage posts (because they're not what the site is for), but we haven't done so in this case, because we have a core rule of moderating less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is in a story. (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...)
If you want to be fair, you could add that information. Otherwise, readers will assume you mean that we nefariously censor negative posts about YC, when the truth is the opposite.
Edit: after I posted this, I noticed that the thread said [flagged] at the top. That's because users flagged it—as they usually do with shallow outrage threads. However, I've turned the flags off in keeping with the rule I just mentioned.
> If you want to be fair, you could add that information. Otherwise, readers will assume you mean that we nefariously censor negative posts about YC, when the truth is the opposite.
I'll do that, sure! Dang, I have deep respect for both you and HN for many-many reasons (HN literally changed my life and made it 1000x). So don't take this as me having a grudge. I just like accountability.
> but it does sound like you noticed something that should not have been there.
Thanks! I appreciate the kind reply—a nice change from how these things usually go. And I'm grateful to hear that you feel that way about HN. (What you say about how it changed your life is true in my case too, which is one reason why I'm doing this job.)
> I don't follow this, sorry.
Oh, I just meant that it sounds like you spotted something (the video in this case, I assume) that should not have been on an official YC launch page. I was being careful with my wording because I haven't looked at any of the details and haven't myself seen the video—I'm only going by the reactions that people are having to it.
reply