If work means to live a happy and meaningful life- absolutely.

If work means to gain the prestige of a man like Conway- probably not. But I can rest assured that I likely wouldnt achieve that with other attitudes either

Part of the reason I enjoy Safari is that I've found its content blocking system to be very coherent

Obviously that's more of a me issue than an issue inherent to self-learning, but many of us have me issues.

If you're not the type of person who would benefit from structure and community- the value proposition clearly doesn't make sense. Even if you would benefit from those things- the value proposition isnt clear at all- its tremendously expensive.

Programming is inherently creative and few books that I've read have room for creativity. I find it better to discover information than get it from a curriculum.

Our minds arent so easily fooled by a truck lighting setup

Which often takes time. And limits engagement. The maintainers of pacman have a limited amount of energy they're willing to spend on free support- I'm happy for then to save effort wherever they can.

I wont argue that if you can be kind while sacrificing absolutely nothing else- absolutely be kind.

But anybody who has ever played a competitive sport or even team lifted a couch knows that sometimes barking an order is the best way of doing things- and you just have to have somewhat thick skin.

To live in a world where the perfect message always exists would be great. We dont live in that world.

Human communication is impossible to get perfect. You have to strike a balance between a bunch of priorities. I could write an essay on this topic, but nobody would read it. Thus I sacrifice clarity for brevity, and make a comment that can be read in a minute.

If I highly prioritized kindness and told you how much I respected your viewpoint and appreciate your taking the time to engage with me- that would naturally require a number of words. Which means I either make my comment longer- which reduces engagement, or I shorten the meat of the argument- which reduces clarity.

So you can see how these different priorities can come at cost of one another. While I'd like to find the ideal sentence every time I communicate that sacrifices nothing- I just dont have the communication skills to do so.

But the result is a channel that is a very effective means of support when the documentation or wiki doesnt have what you need.

Communication is a game of compromise. Sometimes it makes sense to compromise on clarity or brevity to be nice. But when your goal is to solve difficult, material problems- it can be beneficial to prioritize clarity over all else.

The author mentioned Bezos' grandmother being hurt when he mentioned she smoked away 9 years of her life. Is it really Bezos' manners that hurt her feelings? I would imagine that that realization hits hard and does damage on it's own. I think it would be very hard to get that message hard without it hurting. You can attempt to veil the message and lessen the impact, or distract from it somehow- but now you've impacted the integrity of the message.

Articles and headlines based around classism are everywhere these days- and they arent marketing towards people who dont buy that classism is a huge problem. There are an extremely large number of americans who eat this shit up as truth.

This isnt about being caught- the evidence is clear as day and was presented in court.

This is about a failure of our legal system to protect basic rights of a laborer to be paid the agreed upon rate.

I know you're just quoting the article, but it feels sort of slanderous to include this detail without the proper context.

Ultimately, blaming political rhetoric for the attacks of those who are mentally ill or anti-social is either ignorant or straight up dishonest.

This obsession to learn the political affiliations of people who are clearly mentally ill is frankly ridiculous, and giving attention to these folks deranged "manifesto" has much more directly encouraged these events than any political rhetoric.

The reason they write a manifesto before they murder people is because they want to be heard. When you attempt to use them as a political tool, are you really condemning them, or are you actively rewarding them?