>(“What’s up?” is one of the most dreadful texts to get; it’s short for “Hello, I’d like you to entertain me now.”) And asking your partner question after question and resenting them when they don’t return the favor isn’t generosity; it’s social entrapment
I'm not a great texter but this resonated with me and I'd never really thought about it. It's annoying when I don't feel like texting and I just get bombarded with questions demanding a response. On the other hand I can sympathize if they want to chat and I just don't.
I feel like I've been on both sides of all the examples in this piece depending on what kind of mood I'm in
And then, if you don't make any questions, they may think that you don't care enough about them. Also, if you just often share information that is interesting to you, some may think you are tedious/boring.
Notice that both your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you. If that is your idea of socializing, I would come to the same conclusion.
As cliche as it is, find things in others that genuinely interest you. And don't expect it be a fruitful experience. There are so many reasons the socializing ritual can end up being unfulfilling.
Did you notice? People tends to interpret others in the worst possible way; even you inferred from my two short sentences that I am a controlling person. I'm not offended, it's just funny, and kind of reinforces my previous point.
Regarding your interpretation, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a huge difference between influencing someone to do what you want and simply being careful with what you say in order to avoid triggering negative responses/feelings in your peers.
I don't think the latter falls into being controlling/manipulative in any way, on the contrary, I think it is the base of good social etiquette, and I prefer to be surrounded by people who behave like that than the opposite.
There's some good irony in your reply and I think we're both laughing for different reasons. I have no intention in being combative, but it is you who interpreted my post in the worst possible way.
I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person. I was only referring to your fixation on their reactions and feelings.
> I was speaking from a neutral and stoic stance. Nowhere did I imply manipulation or attempting to control another person
You literally said:
> your sentences are trying to control the other person's reaction and feelings towards you
Although the tone you hear in your head may sound stoic, I don't think that stance is neutral at all. You didn't say "I think your sentences..." or "Looks like your sentences..."; you made a subjective affirmation based on two sentences I said about people's feelings in conversations, on a thread about people's feelings in conversations, on a post about people's feelings in conversations.
If my two sentences in this context really mean that I am fixated, then everyone in HN is fixated on whatever they write, which is ridiculous.
I'm starting to think you are just trying to troll me.
>a big innovation of HL2 was the extensive use of a real physics engine. The door and the guard are both physical objects, both have momentum, they impart an impulse on each other, and although the door hinge is frictionless, the guard's boots have some amount of friction with the floor.
It's been a while since I've played HL2 but this isn't exactly how I remember it. While a lot of things were physics objects I thought the doors would just smoothly rotate towards their target position without any physics at all. You can't bump them shut with another physics object for instance.
You can't move them (apart from the opening and closing animation), but they can move other objects that are in their way. Both need to be physics objects for that to work, even though the door is just kinematic (i.e. it won't react to forces applied to it). Although if I remember correctly, they are not even fully kinematic. I think you could get them stuck halfway closed by cramming something in the door frame that would get the whole thing jammed.
> I think you could get them stuck halfway closed by cramming something in the door frame that would get the whole thing jammed.
This was a popular griefing tactic when TF2 first came out where you could trap everyone in spawn by crouch-jumping into the spawn door as Scout: https://youtu.be/JUPzN7tp7bQ?t=243
Just did some quick testing - the doors definitely have physics and can get stuck on objects and can impart forces. But unimpeded yes, they smoothly open/close.
I stuck a tire in a door frame and tried to close it, the tire emitted a bunch of dust clouds as the two objects fought before the door finally ejected the tire at high speed.
In Half-Life 1 there is a map with two doors that deal negative crushing damage, so you can wedge yourself in them to give yourself a massive over heal
There were definitely some words in there which I had never heard even as a native English speaker. One suggestion I would make if the intent is to teach people a new language would be to limit the word list based on how commonly used the words are. I don't think it helps non-proficient speakers to learn extremely obscure words that nobody uses.
You could make it so that the X most common words are needed to win and the rest are bonus points or something.
Thank you! And yes, taming the word list is a constant battle and a matter of taste. I haven't tried to draw such strict lines yet for the entire language as to what definitely will and won't be in there, beyond nothing vulgar, too obscure, or too obsolete. There's a ton of flowers in there for example, which is interesting, but also, eh. I wanted to get it in front of people and hear what they thought, so thank you for this!
I'm not the OP nor am I advocating for their point, but I believe there are some cases, e.g. with car manufacturers, where different regulations apply depending on how many you produce. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine something similar applying to how many copies of a video game you sell.
Applying different rules based on how many of a physical object a manufacturer produces is 100% something the manufacturer knows at the time they take the action.
If the regulation says "manufacturers have a higher standard for logging safety data for cars where more than 10,000 were produced", the manufacturer knows the new rule applies to them when they choose to build the 10,000th car. They can opt to do or not do that.
The equivalent here would be if we said something like: there are different regulations that apply to car manufacturers if somebody drives one of their cars for more than 10,000 miles. Because in this case, the person making the car has absolutely no clue if or when that will happen.
Yeah it's true that basing a regulation off of how much any one customer uses the product seems impractical, but I don't think that's necessarily what was being suggested.
>Games people spend 1000 hours playing earn a level of cultural significance that deserves protection from rent-seeking publishers.
I just take this to mean that exceptionally popular things should be subject to some protections and not necessarily grant the original creators unlimited control over them. One way of doing this would be to have some regulation which forces companies to make their products accessible to modders or open source projects like OpenMW after they've reached a certain level of popularity. Using copies sold as a proxy for popularity seems reasonable to me.
Again: that’s contrary to how our laws and regulations work.
Having a rule that applies to game developers after they’ve done something, entirely unrelated to anything in their control, is frankly horrifying. “Sorry, you can’t ship any more breaking changes, your game hit a popularity threshold yesterday”.
I'm curious what they use to provide food for the lab grown salmon cells. They need all the same nutrients but even more precisely formulated since there isn't a digestive system.
It seems like it will have the same problem with inputs or perhaps even worse. This is one of the reasons I'm still skeptical about lab grown meat taking off.
I'm surprised they didn't mention anything about preventing spam. The biggest thing that deters me from doing something like this is the idea that not long after I opened it up it would get hammered by bots so much that it would make the whole thing unusable.
Maybe tangential, but I just added a little 3-second delay to my stats counter. I’ll find out if that worked for the specific bots I’m trying to avoid in a couple days.
I might have to do this with my printer the Raspberry Pi 400 in my bedroom.
The protagonists are libertarians with teenage harems, who fake an election and team up with with a sex pest. That's extremely reductive to the point of parody, but that will likely be the media coverage of it then moment someone reads the women and politics in the book.
If you completely excise anything too distasteful for a current-day blockbuster, but want a film about a space mining colony uprising you might as well just adapt the game Red Faction instead: have the brave heros blasting away with abandon at corpo guards, mad genetic experimenters and mercenaries and the media coverage can talk about how it's a genius deconstruction of Elon Musk's Martian dream or whatever.
You’d think some filmmaker would have run with the dystopian theme. The accuracy of the book’s predictions is impressive, even the location of the North American Space Defense Command. The biggest miss was people using wired telephones everywhere.
same with pretty much every scifi movie and book from my youth. What movies that wouldn't have been rendered ridiculous by the invention of the cellphone were done in by the hairstyles or fashion.
If you're an extensive user of ChatGPT, or if you can give it some material about yourself like say, a resume or a LinkedIn profile, ask it to roast you. It will be very specific to the content you give it. Be warned, it can be brutal.
Whoa dude! It was brutal, but highly constructive! Actually extremely helpful (and quite funny, though I have a high sense of humor about things so others might not appreciate some of it :-D)
This was my favorite line after asking it to review my resume and roast me:
> Structure & Flow: “Like Kubernetes YAML — powerful, but not human-readable.”
Some other good ones:
> Content & Tone: “You’re a CTO — stop talking like a sysadmin with a thesaurus.”
> Overall Impression: “This resume is a technical symphony… that goes on for too many movements.”
I came back to this comment just to thank you - I started off with Claude, feeding it my personal site, my résumé, the HN roast of me, etc. and it was super funny.
But then, I veered that same conversation into asking for GTM (go to market) advice, and it was actually really good. It actually felt tailored to me (unsurprisingly) and a lot more useful.
As always, I don't know whether this is a very light form of "ai psychosis" haha but still, super grateful for the advice. Cheers
"The user will start a comment with 'I'm a social libertarian but...' only to be immediately downvoted by both libertarians and socialists. The irony will not be lost on them, just everyone else."
>You voted with your feet and moved to Western Europe for better well-being, but you still won't vote with your cursor and use a browser other than Edge.
One of my earlier jobs a decade ago involved doing pipeline development and Jenkins administration for the on-site developer lab on one of the NRO projects, and I inserted a random build failure code snippet to test that pipelines could recover from builds that failed for unpredictable reasons, like a network error rather than anything actually wrong with the build. I had to do this on the real system because we didn't have funds for a staging environment for the dev environment, and naturally I forgot to get rid of it when I was done. So builds randomly failed for years after that before I remembered and fixed it.
I'm not a great texter but this resonated with me and I'd never really thought about it. It's annoying when I don't feel like texting and I just get bombarded with questions demanding a response. On the other hand I can sympathize if they want to chat and I just don't.
I feel like I've been on both sides of all the examples in this piece depending on what kind of mood I'm in
reply