If you build your platform well, then you can execute fast, but also safe.
I push "money and data are sacred"; if we lose either of those, someone cries. Build the platform slow and fast. Governance, scaling etc sits here.
Provide reference APIs and let the product team one shot whatever they want and need, build fast and experimental, but your platform enforces constraints.
Best of both worlds (though feels like we're back in backend vs frontend development)
>If you build your platform well, then you can execute fast, but also safe.
this is extremely true, but it seems less and less like anyone wants to invest in a solid platform and just wants to jump to executing fast and unsafe. and then pretends that ai can definitely do both when the experience is quite a bit different.
I have seen at least one example develop in real time. You typically spent years building before you had a platform, then lack the enthusiasm from senior leadership to invest the next 12-18 months with no new features and hard to quantify - maybe no - returns. Then you get displaced by newcomers who are "platform native"; what this really means is their engineering misteps haven't been discovered yet, or even if they guessed correctly the world has turned and made their previously correct solution now a failing one. And now we have something called "AI-native" that is going to solve this once and for all with some sort of magic, and you can't lead these companies unless you truly believe in the magic.
“ You typically spent years building before you had a platform, then lack the enthusiasm from senior leadership to invest the next 12-18 months with no new features and hard to quantify - maybe no - returns.” —> this is failure from the team and especially people who should do product management job on that team.
Yes, determinism is actually something we spent a lot of time to achieve.
The general answer is yes, especially on certain architectures, with some caveats and some methods to increase it.
You can find more info in docs/BATCH_INVARIANCE.md
We wanted to let you know about changes to the models that you can access with your Google AI Plus plan.
Starting on 1 3 N o v e m b e r 2 0 2 6 , the ability to select Pro models in both the Gemini app and AI Mode in Google Search will only be available to Google AI Pro subscribers and above. You'll still have access to our latest Flash-Lite model and Flash, built for speed and intelligence. Your previous chats using the Pro model can be continued with a different model.
To learn more about these changes, you can visit our Help Centre article for additional details. You can manage or cancel your subscription at any time.
For search I am perfectly happy with 3.6 Flash, its fast and servicable, and maybe being too smart is almost a problem for search and research. Mostly the edge google has here is that websites blocked for claude or chatGPT (if it respects the block) are unblocked for gemini.
I mean, you can also use agents to listen to users and handle issues automatically.
But I guess you mean the discovery part? Yea, agents are not going to totally replace that anytime soon. Though, Claude voice mode is pretty good these days, so I’m sure it’s on their mind.
Not sure what you mean by “stay the course.” I think the winners will be those with the most effective marketing strategies. Surely that will require automation.
Case in point: I am building a digital files archive organizer platform.
This is simply not the kind of product you do a quick prototype of, get it to market quickly, and iterate on based on any failures or issues.
There are an almost infinite number of ways to get the product wrong, in a technical, architectural, and business/market sense. It requires a lot of deep thinking and internal prototyping to even get at what would actually be useful and address the walled-content-silos problem tech vendors love to foist on us. it requires careful implementation to not mess up user data. It requires a ton of architectural and UX design to get a performant product that is easy to understand. I have mulled over architectural decisions for months and thrown them out totally after mounting evidence they were not right, without a single user yet (except myself).
Just quickly coding up the first ideas that come to mind in this space is almost guaranteed to be wasted effort, because I could try a 100 approaches in the market and all could be bad. Do not let the users do your work for you. Make sure you actually understand what you are building and why it is important. Then let the user's experiences tell you how to tweak it to be better.
This may be small nuclear team vs sprawling org difference.
This process works so well in a team that are all pushing together.
Moving the ticket along and a slack to the effect of "this one is quick and easy" Vs "this one's a bit gnarly, happy to jump on it with someone" generally sees PRs reviewed very quickly.
A pleading cat gif is usually enough as a reminder.
A well oiled team is working to deliver customer value (internal or external). I've been lucky enough to have had a few teams of incredibly good engineers over the years. So much gets done.
I can see it not working so well in a team of "individuals" focused on their own performance and "personal responsibility" solely for their bit.
The kind of teams that throw everything over the wall to an individual making a build gate go/no-go decision perhaps.
> This may be small nuclear team vs sprawling org difference.
This is very likely a big part of the difference. Most of my career has been spent at very large companies. Smaller teams that can manage to be more inwardly focused with fewer cross, team dependencies, can doubtless operate differently.
> The kind of teams that throw everything over the wall to an individual making a build gate go/no-go decision perhaps.
That’s not really what I described. I ran the process, not the fundamental go/no go decision, which was a distributed responsibility. That was the exact friction, and it’s very similar to the code review friction in large organizations. A PR author has a responsibility for their PR but it may require sign off from numerous other teams.
Some of this is necessary complexity that arises from large teams building large products. Some of it is certainly dysfunction.
When a small team sits close to each other, you can simply say: "hey guys, anyone got time to check my PR?".
In a gigantic org, you can message them on Teams, but everyone keeps getting messages on Teams constantly so they are probably going to ignore you for an hour.
Given they probably need to go through layers of management, across teams, and go through relevant testing to adjust the LLM prompt, this was probably a nice quick and flexible way to create a "shadow" prompt.
Maybe? But it also doesn't necessarily belong into the prompt. The model probably accesses the help pages as a RAG knowledgebase, so putting it there makes sense.
Is that not the epitome of the classic mid life crisis?
You hit a point in your life, reflect back on where you'd thought you'd be when you were in your early 20s, and think.. shit.. what I do all of this for?
This isn't even a flippant comment (especially given the subject matter); being at this age and thinking "I imagined it would all be easy by now" does hit home.
> You hit a point in your life, reflect back on where you'd thought you'd be when you were in your early 20s, and think.. shit.. what I do all of this for?
Do people who say this have kids? I ask genuinely. Everything before my little dude was fake. Everything since him is real deal Holyfield. Probably knock off in the next 20 minutes and take him to Home Depot to look at some bullshit because we have a good time with that kind of thing.
Yes, men who have children do go through nihilistic existential mid life crises too. That age has their biggest risk of cheating on their partners, fathering new children with work colleagues, walking away from marriage, developing drug and alcohol dependency, developing serious gambling problems and other worse things. Parenthood reduces but does not eliminate the risk of suicide in middle aged men, and parenthood plus long term joblessness is a common cause.
Midlife anxieties are real and nothing in particular prevents it.
I can imagine having kids is super rewarding, but also amplifies the pressure of being a provider probably 100x. In uncertain times, I think a lot of us aren't sure how we'll provide for ourselves in ~5 years, let alone a tiny dude, which plays into the decision to not have kids.
I'm still gainfully employed, and business is ripping, but a huge part of my value as a professional got totally vaporized over the last year. So part of me is extremely glad I don't have kids right now, and part of me is really angry that everything feeling so unstable is leading to our decision to not have them. I know that even in the best time it's a scary decision, but the general vibe is flipping people (like my wife and i) who are at the margin.
I am in this awkward situation where I just had a baby, but at the same time feel I should work less and put less effort into work. But at the same time not being able to slow down.
I daydream about being fired with severance so I can spend more time with my little dude. But also deadly afraid of not being able to get another job when savings run out.
Congrats on baby and best of luck balancing this. In my limited experience it's the balancing that is the actual work that allows all the other domestic and professional work for this part of my life.
> a huge part of my value as a professional got totally vaporized over the last year
We are all descendants of like 1,000 individuals who kept having lil babies through an ice age. There are mobile home parks full of happy kids dotting my town, populated by people who paint houses and do landscaping and make ends meet. I have no idea what your profession is or what your housing situation is, so maybe that's already where you are. My wife and I talk gratitude a lot, and that includes being grateful that if we had to dig ditches to keep a double wide over our heads, we'd go ahead and do that and have some giggles with our little miracle in there.
Nah you're way off the mark here and this sounds scarily like how people feel when at their most bleak. I hope this is just you reflecting and not how you feel "in real life" - family needs family and kids need their parents. Kids need their parents even if they're broke and/or out of work.
I don't dismiss or discount your perspective but based on my social circle: Your experience of fatherhood is not the median. The variance is pretty high too.
I agree. I'm a father of two, and my existence didn't suddenly get meaningful when I had children. I always found it meaningful, only in the sense that I get one life and want to experience as much as I can while I have it. That is a big part of why I chose to have children, it seemed like basically *the* fundamental life experience. But for me, I didn't experience this sudden big gain in meaning that a lot of online fathers seem to have.
I also wasn't prepared for a bit of a curve ball and I have experienced a loss of self that hasn't recovered or been compensated for yet.
I often wish I felt like a lot of other online fathers, but I take comfort in knowing there are a lot of others out there like me who struggle with parenthood. I hope I figure it all out in time!
Only one kid and I can't pretend it is all sunshine and rainbows, but there are real moments that make some of the other things irrelevant. It is possible that I went into fatherhood older and with eyes wide open so it was less of an adjustment, but it still surprised me in how things slowly re-aligned. Meaning was basically a side-effect of near exclusive focus on someone else ( for me ).
And that was my long way to say, the struggle is real and we are all figuring it out in real time. gl out there
I’m grateful for your comment. I’m also a father of two, and the “loss of self” has frankly worsened over time (though my oldest isn’t even 4 yet).
After the second, I thought it would get better, and that a Contented Doting Father would emerge from the ruins of my previous life. That the attention and effort required would simply obliterate any trace of my past self, and with it, any longing for the spontaneity and lightness and frankly selfishness of my child-free life.
But that hasn’t happened. There are moments of grace and joy, and I love my kids so deeply it’s painful (he says, truthfully, but defensively, because an admission like this from a father usually doesn’t go over well).
But counterintuitively, returning to the topic of the thread, if I DO lose my career, I will be doubly grateful for my kids. Because they DO love me unconditionally, and I them; they don’t care about status games or anomie or anything resembling a “career.” Perhaps starting over in a new field and moving to a cheaper COL area would finally clear space for the Contented Doting Father.
Unsolicited pov. Don't do this to yourself. I don't doubt that there exists such a person, but it's not the norm and when it is observed I reckon it is as often someone feigning as it is anything else.
Love your kids and raise them as best you know how. That's the deal. That's enough. You are allowed space to miss aspects of your life before, and that may or may not fade.
I am also so grateful to hear this in response to my comment.
As far as I see it, I use the term "online fathers" in a rather cynical manner. In real life, I interact with parents who are struggling, I know some who are suffering from depression (I'm lucky to belong to a sports club where some dads unload). This is real life.
But go online and you'd think you're some sort of freak for not being completely transformed and having unconditional daily joy from being a dad.
By the way. The last week has been a good week. I've had a lot of work stress, but my children seem to have somehow sensed it and they're being extra kind to me, giving me lots of hugs and just wanting to be with me. It feels WONDERFUL. Like you, I love them more than I would have ever known, would literally die for them. But it is also ok to admit it is very hard, and there is a big loss of self and other aspects.
Kids loose interest in you as they age and do their own stuff. You are necessary for their survival, but they prefer company of peers. And then they leave.
All of that is normal, but you are left alone and if taking the kid somewhere was your only thing, you have nothing.
that's what I felt about moving to a different country, too, until I didn't.
I think these things are less consistent than is often stated, we just see them occur consistently among people with similar lives. The "mid life crisis" is also debunked and replaced by "existential crisis" since it can actually occur at any age, from teenager to elderly, and zero, one, or multiple times. Only in the classic life progression of a certain era, it typically occurred worst at around 40-45 so it got that label.
I would think those with kids at that age that wanted them worked backwards from that mission, and if they have a midlife crisis it's some version of having spent too much time working and on their kid and start spending their money on low-impact possibly expensive hobbies they'd have liked to do in their younger years, somewhat in denial of the fact that they sold their whole life to the man despite raising a kid.
But that sounds nice! Let me reword: after getting through the messy middle of establishing a career and weathering the insane time and money necessary to rear a young kid, a dude finds himself with a little more time and money, and doesn't know what to do with himself. He gets a fishing rod/road bike/membership at makerspace/skein of nice yarn and some circular needles/signs up for his first powerlifting meet. He makes new friends, shows his kid a new side of himself, and maybe gets a nice steelhead/race trinket/dining table/scarf/medal out of the whole thing.
Sure, seems like it would be a standard path in another time. The real personal crisis in that position these days is probably being forced to find a new career instead of or alongside raising a kid. Unless you get quite lucky, things can get dark very quickly. Job loss creates stress, prolonged unemployment might break up your relationship, lose access to the kid maybe, and suddenly you're destitute. It's hard to see prospects for normal people getting better, and it makes more sense to avoid the kid and the house.
I had two kiddos by the time I as 23 and I'm in my late 40s now. I am super glad that they are off on their own, living their own successful lives and I am very proud of them.
You too will (hopefully) watch your children move away.
Personally, when I am down I've been feeling a little like I've finished the main quest in a video game. I can look to my kiddos and be happy that they are doing okay but I still have almost as much adult life in front of me as I have behind me.
While the philosophy degree I got when I was young has helped a lot, I'm middle age, twice-divorced, and haven't had (or needed) a "regular" job, bald (well, I rock a skullet and have 'aura' according to the youngesters), and I can't rock climb as hard as I used to. I don't really enjoy drinking anymore, and I don't enjoy many drugs at all. I've gotten to a position where it's hard to maintain the fantasies that make romantic partners appealing, and while I have deep and diverse friend groups, I still spend most of my time in a shack in the middle of nowhere writing music for no one.
When people shit-talk on humanities educations, it's been hard to keep my mouth shut because the real payoffs have been in being able to meet the long and large world with some equanimity and I feel incredibly privileged to have been so misguided in my early life that I got a deep and canonical education.
There are plenty of things that I can do- keeping with the video game metaphor, I feel like I am working through all possible side quests on hard mode. Being emancipated from my children means that I no longer have to earn very much money or even maintain a stable home if I don't enjoy it.
I bought some off grid land in the middle of nowhere and I am slowly getting utilities working in the shacks. I started doing way more direct political action, including getting an EMT cert so I could volunteer at the local free clinic. I have 4 bands and play 5-6 gigs a month and run an A/V company where I do another 2-3 gigs a month.
So, yeah, I've got a pretty good skill set, I have however easy a life that I choose, lots of engagement in my enclosure. I have kids I am proud of.
And even looking at all that, I look at even a couple of years and sometimes wonder "shit.. what I do all of this for?". And I know that in another 25 years I will still probably asking that question, wondering if there had been a better way to do the things.
Enjoy browsing stuff with your kiddos. That is indeed the important kind of activity. But also, understand that you too will (hopefully) face existential choices in the future.
Yeah I think having him later in my life and him still being a toddler just means "having kids" means wildly different things in our cases. In my case, the life altering pivots (getting sober, married, divorced) happened before meeting my wife with whom I had him. I guess I got extremely lucky having the nuclear life changer of a baby show up at the age where such a thing is welcome. We just started touring preschools and the rapid approach of a time where I'm not within 30 feet of him for 90% of the day is already a pretty daunting prospect.
Yes. Come on, I love my kid, but you can't seriously be asking this question. Fatherhood is in fact sometimes part of what they're so dissatisfied with.
> The only thing keeping me alive is the idea of revenge against the people who insult us like this.
Pretty major red flag there. As an awkward, small, unattractive teen I could've related. Yet the best thing was letting it go and finding other people whom I could connect with.
FWIW, social status comes from “interestingness” rather than the pure application of time and money. Anything that is mostly grinding (a few million, muscles, etc) doesn’t clear that threshold. At best it checks a box.
If there isn’t a compelling story behind it, it probably doesn’t convey social status. Poor people with interesting lives often have far more success in the dating market than “successful” people that are indistinguishable from every other successful person. It is less about collecting credentials and more about writing a story that people want to read.
Fortunately, the bar for this is low. Most people have done few interesting things in their entire lives despite abundant opportunity. Many people that have lived interesting lives fail to tell the story. Having time and money expands the kind of story you can write but you still need the courage to live it.
I wish I would have figured this out earlier in my life than I did.
I've travelled around the world, lived in 4 countries, read hundreds of books, I played guitar. Only thing I don't have is smoking and tattoos.
I'm just slightly autistic, which is barely visible, but makes me socially untalented, I make small mistakes or don't notice clues, and here I am, 43, hating everyone. A small communication handicap at the beginning, that society took as an excuse to fail my life entirely. I'm happy to have lived so far, I couldn't guess at an earlier age how lengths people go hurting their fellow citizen.
I don't doubt that social media and dating apps may have broken the "market", but if you're living for revenge then women can probably pick up on that.
Guys that do have families are willing to give up a lot too. Things I was never really willing to give up.
I have dated a lot and there is one woman I would have wanted kids with. She wasn't into that with me though.
That is not a problem with the woman, that is a problem with me.
I know a few guys in this same situation. It is not a problem with the dating market, it is a type of narcissism that clouds judgement and sets standards that can't be met.
It is hard to see it in yourself until you get a vasectomy.
I guess it's hard to understand what women want...
CEO could mean no free time to spend with her. Muscular for what? Are you climbing or doing some other interesting sport or just spend time at the gym?
A lot of money, but are you doing something good with it? Helping people? At least some women think that's admirable.
I don't know you personally, so it's just some general vibe I've gotten from your post. No offense, maybe none of this is you but if it is it might be worth thinking about.
Most people who are saying this to you are in a similar situation like yourself, but with that missing element you have.
If you have money, but they don't, then they think there must be your fault, because if they had money, they wouldn't be in this situation.
If you're muscular, but they're not, then they think if they were muscular, they wouldn't be in this situation.
The biggest insult in the incel community is not someone who gets laid, but that someone is a volcel larping as an incel (purely as an attempt to demoralize them)
I do agree that the dating market is broken, but only men can find a way out of this. And those women want to be saved too, just not the way you think.
I'm sorry, but it's pretty hard to believe that you have all these qualities and are still alone because of women or whatever. I've met so many horrible men that are married and have a family, and they are not millionaires, muscular or providers.
The world is large. I will say what I used to say when people complained about how awful dating was pre social media, if you are shopping at a bar, it is like shopping in the gutter, you may find a gem but more often it is shit.
There are alot of women who want kids but they likely are not in the pool you engage with. Go to a conservative US christian state, join a church, engage with the community, it is easy. I bet the issue is that you do in fact have a standard and that standard is the barrier.
If it helps, almost every wealthy man i have known engaged with escorts or prostitutes at some point so I wouldnt view it as shameful and who knows, you may learn something about yourself in the process.
> Go to a conservative US christian state, join a church
While this strategy can work, it also means your kids will likely be taught hell is a real place most of humanity will go to suffer in eternal flames. (Possibly from a very young age.) Does not help with mental health.
Red states also have quite a lot of racism, IME. So be sure to be at least passing as white and with little or no accent.
> I bet the issue is that you do in fact have a standard and that standard is the barrier.
Among the guys I've known this seems to be the biggest factor. Of course ladies have their own expectations. Everyone seems to relax them as they get older.
> So actually I think the real solution to these problems is actually banning birth control.
Anytime where someone thinks the solution to a problem is taking away choices from another group it's time to be very very suspicious to say the least.
There's a lot of points in this post that are common talking points in the "manosphere":
> you get a lot of single men who want to kill themselves and a lot of single women who are fine with being single
> What’s happening is a population crisis. Women don’t get with men, men are frustrated but also there’s no children.
These are not widely accepted viewpoints.
It's impossible to prove or disprove something like these are "wrong" or "right", but blaming women for male unhappiness is a prime tactic that is very similar to the common tactic of blaming an outgroup. It's not a good thing!
>Anytime where someone thinks the solution to a problem is taking away choices from another group it's time to be very very suspicious to say the least.
Is it? Nature and evolution never gave us the choice for millions of years. We only had the choice for the last century and for the first time in human history, humanity is hitting population decline. Asia, notably Korea, Japan, and china are hitting it first.
>These are not widely accepted viewpoints.
Who cares about widely accepted? How about let's talk truth. Is it real or not real? HN has been widely wrong about AI and self driving cars, The US population voted for trump and has been largely wrong. Widely accepted is not widely true.
>It's impossible to prove or disprove something like these are "wrong" or "right", but blaming women for male unhappiness is a prime tactic that is very similar to the common tactic of blaming an outgroup. It's not a good thing!
WE don't need to prove anything. It's just a discussion. When people on HN ask for scientific proof and statistical validation it halts the conversation and is unfair because MOST things cannot ever be validated like this. There's no point. I won't hold you to that because if I did the discussion will end. Present your argument and I'll give it a fair read, I won't do something stupid and ask for a scientific paper.
Also Why don't you take more time to read what I wrote. I never BLAMED women. My argument is women are changing and that is the cause of a lot of problems. Take a closer look, I said women becoming more empowered and the rise of feminism ARE good things... it's morally right. But their are intrinsic biological consequences because things have not been this way biologically for millions of years.
Think of it like how the female praying mantis eating the male praying mantis after they mate. That is NOT a morally right action. I mean it's technically murder... But it happens because of biology. The intrinsic dilemma here is nature vs. ethics. By creating a more ethical society we have exited gender norms established by nature for millions of years. We give people choice which is ethical, but orgasms and sex were CLEARLY biologically evolved to be addictive and remove choice from the equation.
So what is the correct action here? Be ethical or align our behavior with biological norms which are clearly unethical? I don't actually know. But there are clearly logistical consequences that occur when people don't behave the way they were evolved to behave. How much "ethics" are we willing to give up to prevent those consequences? Again I don't actually know.
Look up the population decline, it's a real thing. You can buy a house (a really good one) for 10k in Japan due to massive population loss. It's a real problem that will affect all of us WITHIN out lifetimes. Birth control is definitely a causal factor within it.
And also get over the idea that our biology is aligned with ethics. It's not this way for praying mantises and don't expect it to magically be that way for humans.
>> Anytime where someone thinks the solution to a problem is taking away choices from another group it's time to be very very suspicious to say the least.
> Is it?
Yes.
To quote you: "get over the idea that our biology is aligned with ethics."
> Nature and evolution never gave us the choice for millions of years. We only had the choice for the last century and for the first time in human history, humanity is hitting population decline. Asia, notably Korea, Japan, and china are hitting it first.
You say this like population decline is a bad thing.
It's true that it upends economic growth that is based on population growth.
Beyond that it's not particularly clear cut.
> Also Why don't you take more time to read what I wrote. I never BLAMED women.
And yet your solution is to make them have more children ("So actually I think the real solution to these problems is actually banning birth control.), and "Women don’t get with men, men are frustrated but also there’s no children"
You causal chain clearly makes women responsible: you argue that population growth is the solution to male suicide(!!), that women "don't get with men", and therefore the solution to the male suicide problem is to ban birth control.
To make it crystal clear:
There is no evidence that shrinking population leads to male suicide.
There are good arguments that a shrinking population is a good thing.
This pulls out the two pillars that support your argument for banning birth control.
>get over the idea that our biology is aligned with ethics.
This quote is true. See praying mantis example. Plenty of examples where the male or female dies sacrificing itself for the next generation. These are not ethical features of biology. They are practical and they factually exist.
>You say this like population decline is a bad thing.
It is. The eventual end of population decline is the decline of civilization and eventually the end of humanity. The first part we face in our lifetimes is economic decline, joblessness, and more.
>Beyond that it's not particularly clear cut.
It's clear cut, within your lifetime you will see a 1st world country be brought down by a complete lack of people. Japan or Korea. We already see the effects in the country. Entire towns and villages vanishing. You just need to scale that up to see what happens next. This is not theoretical. It is happening in front of our eyes.
>And yet your solution is to make them have more children
That's not blame. When a woman has children, so does a man. The man bares the same responsibility.
>You causal chain clearly makes women responsible
It does. They aren't responsible willingly. It's not that they made a bad choice and they become responsible. It's a logistical fact. For example if your car breaks down and you can't drive it. The thing responsible for breaking down is the car. But is it the cars fault? No. Women are the causal source, but it's not their fault.
If you want to make things more fair. Porn is a causal factor from the male side. It keeps a lot of males perpetually single.
>There is no evidence that shrinking population leads to male suicide.
I never claimed this. My claim is that men BEING single and not able to find a male or a girlfriend or a wife increases suicide rates. Think about it. It's a very VERY realistic proposition.
>There are good arguments that a shrinking population is a good thing.
There is FACTUAL on the GROUND realities that show currently how bad it is.
>This pulls out the two pillars that support your argument for banning birth control.
>> You say this like population decline is a bad thing.
> It is. The eventual end of population decline is the decline of civilization and eventually the end of humanity. The first part we face in our lifetimes is economic decline, joblessness, and more.
That's a ridiculous claim unsupported by any evidence.
The counter argument has much stronger backing: If we measure "civilization" by standard of living and technological progress then they are associated with lower birth rates.
>>You causal chain clearly makes women responsible
> It does. They aren't responsible willingly.
Like I said - blaming women.
> My claim is that men BEING single and not able to find a male or a girlfriend or a wife increases suicide rates. Think about it. It's a very VERY realistic proposition.
The evidence doesn't show this. eg:
> Suicide fatality rate was higher in married people compared to the unmarried, however, after adjusting for age as a determinant factor, no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups.
There is some evidence that divorce increases suicide amongst men:
> Divorce did matter in a negative way, but only for men. What seems important about divorce is not that the men end up unmarried. Remember that the men who had always been single were no more likely to kill themselves than the men who were currently married. Instead, having once been married and then getting divorced seems to be the risk – again, only for the men.
> That's a ridiculous claim unsupported by any evidence.
It’s called following the trendline. We have current rates of population decline and past rates of population decline and we do a projection and we get one of the few quantitative predictors in our statistical arsenal. All else is qualitative speculation.
> Like I said - blaming women
Are you reading what I wrote? Take a look at what I wrote again before starting shit.
> The evidence doesn't show this.
Among the suicides by men age 45 to 64 those are the divorced men. That is the age where divorces happen.
Marriage shouldn’t be banned. Condoms should.
And outside of this. Your rude ass comments and witch hunt like accusations were uncalled for.
This isn’t historically true. Women used to work outside the home, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon that the nuclear family with a stay at home mother was the norm. So the basis of your argument is false
Stop insulting me. If you have a counter argument to present, present it. Calling something you disagree with nonsense and presenting no argument or making up shit just shows you don't know what you're talking about.
There simply is no reason to engage with the points you’re trying to make because they are all founded on a bed of lies and deception. If you feel insulted because people call you on your bullshit then tough shit I guess
Then don’t engage. The fact that you decided to engage to write this is a display of how malicious you are. You engage to hurt people. You don’t engage to learn or to see other view points.
Frankly when the topic is suicide people who lack empathy like you really should just exit the room entirely. You exacerbate the problem. I can guarantee you people who kill themselves have been verbally assaulted by people like you.
Also how do you know what I said is founded on a bed of lies and deception? You’re thinking I’m akin to a flat earther but have you ever looked at yourself? Mainstream religion is largely bullshit fantasy with people walking on water and rising from the dead. Have you considered that our own beliefs are although mainstream largely also bullshit?
I doubt you have given the raw malice and anger that exudes from your response. Calm the fuck down and consider the arguments.
Maybe it will sound harsh, sorry for that, but I'm going to be real: people like you should be alone, and will be alone, no matter what happens with women rights in the future. If they are not choosing you now, they will not choose you because they got pregnant or something else. You will still be alone.
You talk about status, but you are here, on HN, where a lot of wealthy people are. You probably have more money than 99% of men. And you still can't get pussy. Look at the @eastbound guy, multimillionaire, muscular, and still not getting pussy. You need something external to validate your shortcomings, and that's human.
Go outside and look at every straight couple that you see. Do you really believe that every one of them are higher status than you, and that's why you are alone? Do you really believe that every woman out there expects to be married to a multimillionaire handsome man? It's delusional, sorry
>Maybe it will sound harsh, sorry for that, but I'm going to be real: people like you should be alone, and will be alone, no matter what happens with women rights in the future. If they are not choosing you now, they will not choose you because they got pregnant or something else. You will still be alone.
I applaud your realness. And I sincerely hope it is completely real with no emotional bias. Tell me the truth like it is. Normally stuff like this gets flagged by dang in HN, but I disagree. If you feel it's true, it should be said.
That being said, there is an argument for making things impersonal. Talk about the state of the world, why needle in on the person making the argument and talk about his personal circumstance? It makes me think even though you CLAIM to be real, I think you're just emotional and trying to get an emotional response. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.
>You talk about status, but you are here, on HN, where a lot of wealthy people are. You probably have more money than 99% of men. And you still can't get pussy. Look at the @eastbound guy, multimillionaire, muscular, and still not getting pussy. You need something external to validate your shortcomings, and that's human.
I don't get as much pussy as I like, nor do I get the girls that I really want. This is true. But I do get around. So this is not fully true.
>Go outside and look at every straight couple that you see. Do you really believe that every one of them are higher status than you, and that's why you are alone?
NO. Dude you're projecting. I'm talking about the population crisis. I'm talking about suicide rates. All my arguments refer to that, it doesn't even touch other couples or "status" or multimillionars. You're completely wrong on where this argument is coming from.
>Is that not the epitome of the classic mid life crisis?
The classic epitome of the mid life crisis has always been something along the lines of, "I spent my whole life working and doing a job that I didn't like, sacrificing my youth and my precious time with my friends and family, and all I'm left with is money. My mortality is coming into view, my best years are behind me, and as I sit here in my big house with my fancy car, I realize I wasted all that time all chasing dollars."
That's a lot different than, "I spent my whole life working and doing a job that I didn't like, sacrificing my youth and my precious time with my friends and family, and I'm left with nothing at all. I have no prospect for retirement, will likely become homeless and destitute when I am unable to continue working and/or am laid off, and their is no future."
"I spent my whole life working and doing a job that I really loved, sacrificing my youth and my precious time with my friends and family, and I'm still left with nothing at all"
I still got burned out.
Loving the career didn't change much.
Now the machines do what I loved to do. I had nothing, but at least I had pride and there was social recognition.
All vanities. Life lesson there.
I don't know what I was chasing, some sort of poetic output. I looked a famous people in this career, I just wanted to leave my name there.
But now I don't, I hate AI and I think its a bad path for humanity.
I guess I can still leave my name elsewhere, maybe I start the Butlerian Jihad somehow.
I imagine myself being the one bureaucrat in the Jihad that banned the use of CPUs with more power than a 80486.
That makes me happy and create a motive to still live.
I think this is a perfect description. The feelings continue across generations with no answer. Meanwhile society continues to shift underneath mens' feet. And still tries to claim it is a personal problem. The browbeating/apathy continues.
The midlife crisis is probably better described as a change or unease in the self and not knowing why you get out of bed in the morning anymore and that entire adventure, whereas this anomie is the social environment you're moored to breaking down.
> Is that not the epitome of the classic mid life crisis?
I think there's a step change from say the silent gen/baby boomer generations where a midlife crisis was realizing you lived the classic "American Dream" but weren't going to be a rockstar or super wealthy, compared to now where a midlife crisis could easily be wondering if you will continue to have any economic value at all years before social security kicks in.
Admittedly this is America-centric, but that's my lived perspective, and also I recognize that things weren't always very stable even here, thus why I am comparing a couple of specific generations to the ones that followed.
There was, for a time when I was younger (as a Gen-Xer), just an assumed sense that each generation would have it better than the last. Naive, perhaps, but alas. And obviously far less people assume that anymore.
I thought it was possible a generation could have it worse off through an economic crisis or period of 70s style malaise, but I at least thought the government would attempt to improve the lives of its citizens. I didn't expect the ruling political party to be so aggressively trying to make our lives worse.
Don't forget that social security has been raided and won't even be available for those of us reaching middle age right now and the people we keep electing who say they will do something about it have shown over and over and over that they actually won't.
Anomie plus helplessness plus a feeling of a rug pull of the laws/equality/character of our country. I am not suicidal but wow I get it.
SS was not "raided" . Whatever made you think that is surely contributing to human misery. It's just running out because it's always been a scheme where the young pay the old and we have fewer young than old. The people getting SS payments, themselves paid into it! It's not any sort of raid, corruption, evil...
And it's actually fairly easy to fix if we raise the social security income tax cap. Next year it's $192,300. Raising that cap significantly (or even eliminating it) would extend solvency for quite a while longer.
Also to work so hard, and even when you have good luck as well, to see the people around you adapting their expectations so fast that they're blasé about what feels like amazing luck and success to you, and to realize that you can never satisfy them, only inevitably let them down when you experience setbacks.
"In every partnership, there is a person who stacks the dishwasher like a Scandinavian architect and a person who stacks the dishwasher like a raccoon on meth." - Someone online.
At home I'm the architect, my wife's the raccoon. I don't actually believe that you can stack the dishwasher wrong as such, but you can make it hard for yourself to unload, if you don't sort the items correctly.
In my dishwasher (some bosch almost identical to the model in the simulation), if you put plastic storage containers upside down on the bottom rack, the force of the jets flip them over and they fill up and don't get clean. They also end up using more water (I think?) because there is water trapped in the dishwasher at the end of the cycle, and things don't dry. Also, if you put large things in particular places they prevent the jet arms from rotating.
Dishwasher physics matter. But I would never criticize a person in my family for loading the dishwasher the "wrong" way; I just sneak in and reorganize when nobody's looking.
More than once a week in my teens, my dad used to coach me on (manual) dishwashing technique and it drove me mad. My teenager can't load the dishwasher for love nor money (rotating arms blocked, filthy plates two to a slot so water can't get between them, etc).There's been something a bit like mindfulness in just leaving him be and then remedying the issues after he's gone to bed, reminding myself while I do it, that I'll miss his shitty dishwasher loading technique when he moves out.
What I've found is that large bulky items (pots, pans, etc) are usually cleaned easily manually, and doing so saves up lots more room for the plates and glasses in the dishwasher. The dishwasher then seems to run better/faster/more effectively, and I actually enjoy cleaning the large stuff for some reason.
> I don't actually believe that you can stack the dishwasher wrong as such
There are definitely more and less correct ways, but personally i think it's "wrong" to load it in a way that leaves the arms blocked or (not) tilt pieces that get excessive water pooling on top
> I don't actually believe that you can stack the dishwasher wrong as such
You most definitely can, they're not magic! The water must hit the right spots and obviously stacking three plates without any space between leads to stuff not getting properly cleaned.
If you try to teach a kid to put the dishwasher you'll learn a ton of wrong ways of doing it! :)
shouldn't stacking like a raccoon on meth be the most optimal way though? since if they're too well stacked you risk water being unable to enter tight places
> I don't actually believe that you can stack the dishwasher wrong as such
I read our dishwashers manual and was surprised at the significant amount of detail about how to position silverware for optimal cleaning (e.g. where to place small spoons, where to place forks, where to place large spoons, etc.)
At our place it's opposite, I guess when you do it often enough you get a preferred method though a relentless optimization loop, which in the end ensures it's all clean, the plates are well separated only in 1 particular order, the glasses are placed to the left so all small pans fit at the right, deep plates are placed half over cutlery rack so they are supported and more fit in, small plates in front so all lids fit before them... etc etc etc.
Yep, I have a more optimised model of stacking than my wife’s ideas. This has lead to “discussions” (still at a friendly level) and the dish washer being placed in my list of responsibilities.
I think optimal configuration is very much a NP complete problem.
Just because a problem is NP-complete doesn't mean it's infeasible to produce "good enough" approximate solutions. The traveling salesman problem is a great example of this.
Not only that, the maximum n a dishwasher can hold is small enough that it can be fairly trivially solved within a reasonable amount of time...though to be fair, iterations are pretty slow, but I think that's fairly easily compensated for with axioms (silverware goes in the silverware spot)
It’s an interesting problem to pack the dishwasher with as many objects as possible and maintain the highest level of cleanliness. Sometimes, there’s an small thing leftover so then repack in a different configuration.
They have trillions worth of obligations to their partners in terms of compute purchase agreements and equity. Burning models to chips isn't really something they can blow money on just for funsies, they need to be able to justify it. The above comments are hypotheses as to why they haven't yet.
I push "money and data are sacred"; if we lose either of those, someone cries. Build the platform slow and fast. Governance, scaling etc sits here.
Provide reference APIs and let the product team one shot whatever they want and need, build fast and experimental, but your platform enforces constraints.
Best of both worlds (though feels like we're back in backend vs frontend development)
reply