The worst part is that it’s impossible to tell if the author has just "improved" a correct article to add hyperbole or if the whole thing is hallucinated and all explanations are kinda wrong.
The question who will benefit from wealth generated by AI is never clearly answered. Or it's hand-waved away with some productivity gains mumbo jumbo (that never result in less work, just more, because everybody loads up on AI tools) or the good old trickle down lie.
When I started game programming, I thought that game programming means manipulating pixels on a screen. Took a while to understand that the stuff you see is just a representation of the game state in memory. The whole game could run in memory only without any render logic and would still work. That's what game servers do.
Nice idea. Small thing: the categories are pretty much fixed. If you have to abbreviate a never-changing category like "Consumer Defen..." in a widget, your design doesn't work in this aspect.
> It's viewing the situation through the lens of Anglo capitalist opinions.
Came here to say this. It's a very narrow perspective that shows in sub headlines like "Kinship societies are wealth-destroying societies".
One could also take the lens of "Kinship societies are making people's wealth more equal to reduce competition and jealousy, increase harmony and happiness" – although I have no data whether these people are genuinely more happy. It quotes some business-oriented Ghanians who seem quite unhappy about sharing their wealth. And yet, the perspective of indivual wealth over group wealth is assumed and never critically reflected upon.
I'm not saying that their way is better or something like that. I just think that reading the article is a good exercise in reflecting on one's own views on life and wealth.
Question 9 imho is the most German one ("When someone says 'we should get coffee sometime,' you understand this to mean:").
It depends on context a bit obviously, but most Germans are sincere about it. You either propose coffee or you don't.
However, there's a subset of Germans who seem to propose coffee and then don't follow up themselves, but it's not just a phrase. If you are the one to follow up, they'd join you. Which, to say the least, is annoying, too.
From my German perspective, asking someone for grabbing coffee sometime and not meaning it is a completely stupid thing to say. Why would you suggest it? Why should the other person have to decode this as a "nice thing to say but not meant literally" if you could say a hundred other things that could be meant literally and are still nice, like "see you around" or something like that?
It's the whims of emotion - in the moment a person says it it can be quite sincere, as that's their genuine mood in that instance, but later on the mood passes and the effort involved in arranging something outweighs the desire.
In that sense it does communicate something: I like and have enjoyed your company in this moment.
I think that some people are missing a layer of abstraction and they cannot tell whether they want to have a coffee or not until they actually start planning it, and once they are in that mental zone, they assess how they feel about things.
This gets mixed up with the whole dance "I want to measure how much you care about having a coffee with me". We're social creatures so negotiation of your position in the hierarchy is very fucking important. You invite to a coffee someone who's from the same or higher social class. You accept invitations from the same or higher social class. Stronger signal "I really want to have a coffee with you" corresponds with bigger difference in hierarchy. Your goal is to game the system so that you're at the top - everyone invites you for a coffee, you decline all invitations. Actually meeting for a coffee is basically failure of diplomacy. People are subconsciously, without any awareness at all, creating very elaborate strategies to this game.
Where I come from it's almost always considered sincere and I would think it would apply for mos of the Europe where we don't greet each other "how are you" without being interested in the actual answer like certain orange crazies voting nation.
Personally I thought the 6th question about the rules was the most German one, sticking to the rules no matter what (that would be actually the least Chinese one, where rules are made up just to exist, but not to enforce).
Struggled most with last two questions, too many correct options to answer.
German -33%
Autistic -36%
Apparently:
"You probably ended up here through social media, which means someone you follow scored either Both or German. They sent it to you as a question or a joke. You are their control group."
I generally mean social invitations sincerely, and expect that other people do too, but also my social anxiety leaves me somewhat relieved if we don't follow through.
Same here. Google lets you refunds or partial refunds and still don’t disclose any customer details. All you see is transaction IDs. I never understood why Apple doesn’t show a history of all IAPs in a similar way with similar control.
You messing with a computer and teens doom-scrolling social media are two entirely different things.
Yes, some teens are creative with uploading videos, most are not. But teens can still be creative with a smart phone, just don’t post that stuff on social media.
But they don't - either through lack of knowledge or just can't be bothered to enforce it because they don't want to upset their kid. If parents were doing this already, the government wouldn't have to step in.
There were pedophiles, porn, extreme gore, cults, scams and a primitive notion of brainrot. Music and games (not that I played games, but honestly my mum thought that this is why I liked computers and what I was doing) were generally thought to turn kids into killers.
Computer users even in the best conditions (and not children) were looked at negatively- as if they were no life losers. The techbro thing, and the normalisation of computer use is a very modern notion.
FWIW I had the same exact situation as the parent, and heard it all from my mum. The computer was considered undesirable at best and actively harmful at worst.
Their point is: for some individuals it can be beneficial.
My point is: on a societal level, the numbers are pretty clear that teens consume too much media (and social media is even more addictive) and their skills and attention span deteriorate.
I think you understood my point and you understand the reasons for the act. But I'm just protesting on behalf of the kids that will pretty much have their lives ruined or made worse for this decision, for what it's worth.
reply