Maybe that's why this discussion is so split between "I read my follows and love it" || "I read the open feeds and hate the stream of trash"

Not sure what can be done when there's such an adversarial environment for open social media - everything you need for a federated environment can be misused by bad actors or neglected by naive well-intentioned ones :/

Why can't they choose political activism? What on earth binds them to a corporate entity and over-rides their agency?

If you want to step up and be an Ambassador, go for it! But if you think they should be compelled to do so, that's an ideological/political point of view of yours and you need to substantiate it.

There were people active in the San Francisco startup scene from multiple countries who would go for a 'holiday' nearby (mexico, canada, etc) for a week every 2-3 months and then get a new 3 month visa on re-entry. One of them told me that after almost two years of that he started getting tougher conversations at re-entry, but was still allowed through.

This is from 2010ish, so maybe things have changed. But it certainly isn't possible to just assume that she broke the rules from that description, because it hinges on extremely technical reading of multiple overlapping legislation and regulation.

Side note on people trying to reason outside their field of knowledge: any American who has never had to deal with visas for incoming people has a useless opinion. The US media on this is hyperpolitical garbage and grievance politics. Not particularly directed at the original poster, just a request to so many indulged Americans who feel informed and entitled on this topic while they are demonstrably wrong.

HN2-100:

HN1: "Not like that"

I mean, if you're upset about government spending on tech, you better sit down before someone tells you what goes on in the large corporate sector...

If you look at a bicycle wheel in motion, you don't see the spokes. If you and everyone you knew had only ever seen wheels in motion, you'd talk about a semi transparent field from the centre to the rim. You would all describe the same phenomena.

I was at a meditation retreat, and I caught a glimpse of the spokes. That's how I've explained it to others.

Does the self seem real? Yes. Is it a useful construct? Can we predict it and manipulate it? Yes. Once you've followed the meditation practices, do you see that it's an illusion? That was absolutely my experience.

Which is a round about way of saying, the conflict you perceive in Buddhism is rooted in the ongoing struggle to perceive the nature of the self, and to notice when your practice becomes entangled in its illusions.

The closest I've seen to an answer is to remove accidental deaths (eg, hit by a car, firearms fatality, etc) but there's a huge range of arguable cases like stroke which is plausibly covid-affected. Second, you have the problem of comparing stats between locations that used different definitions, so it's harder to do post-hoc correlations.

The decisions seems to have been avoiding false-negative mistakes by increasing false positives in the first wave of analysis: "Let's include everything under a simple rule for covid stats so that we at least have some kind of worst-case baseline modelling with similar datasets, and we can figure out afterwards which are real and which aren't"

Anyway, just wanted to see if you actually have a better answer to the problem than the standard that was used.

* daily meditation practice, with a serious meditation tradition.

* fortnightly therapist appointment, weekly if you're running hot at any point

* meditation retreat every six months

When I say 'serious meditation tradition', I mean one that has a few thousand years behind it. Tibetan Buddhist was the path that worked for me, but there are lots of others. 'Mindfulness' meditation, detached from a tradition, is a waste of time for your purposes.

Happy to answer questions, but this cleared up burnout (and lots of other internal friction sources!) for me.

“Actors in this geopolitical region are killing people and destroying infrastructure, and I am going to do everything in my power to disrupt them”

“If more people stood up like this, then either bad actors would have to abandon open-source and pay a dramatic penalty in cost and speed of IT, or they would have to pay open-source maintainers to ensure the . Either way is a win”

“People who don’t like this don’t share my values - they can prioritize the lives of Ukrainians and get on board, or they can maintain a project and provide an alternative, or they can get out of my way while I do something I think is very important”

Anti-online harassment activists: KiwiFarms users look for people to harass online until they kill themselves.

Near: KiwiFarms users harassed me until I killed myself.

KiwiFarms users: We drove one of our targets to kill themselves — hooray for us! We have achieved our explicit aims!

Arp242: (smugly) KiwiFarms users don’t harass people until they kill themselves.

1. High Output Management, Andy Grove - Explains management from first principles in a very engineering mindset. You'll understand the value of meetings, one-on-one's and so on.

2. Mastering the Rockefeller Habits, Verne Harnish - Explains the structure of a business, and the priorities and trade-offs of rapid growth. A bit more holistic and pragmatic than #1, and assumes you're stepping up into new roles and responsibilities relatively frequently

3. Critical Conversations, Grenny/Switzler - Talks about the need for (and differences between) discussion/conflict/control/coordination in communication in an org. Reading this should help you recognise when and how to speak up.

These are more management than leadership, but I found that a strong basis in management made it easier for me to step into leadership when necessary - I knew the why/what/how of the technical and organisational sides of the matter, and built trust and respect on that competence/understanding.

Ping me by DM if you want more customised recommendations - There's books like Pat Lencioni's '7 dysfunctions of a team' which are excellent for helping you recognise and address the most obvious flaws in a team, and it's a great starting point for becoming a good leader.

I'd also recommend things like therapy or the Landmark Forum as a way of working through your feelings about leadership and the way you relate to people. Leading people will bring out a bunch of positive and negative stereotypes in you and the people around you, and I don't think there's a better way than doing the emotional labour of recognising and working through those issues - you start getting into territoriality and survival-mode mechanisms when you are in charge of teams, and so much of it is kept below conscious awareness because the emotions involved tend to be overwhelming and imprinted at a very young age.

Maybe you think Clearview is fine to offer the service, but there are people who disagree based on moral, ethical and practical arguments - and this action seems in line with Apple's stated privacy concerns and prior enforcement of their enterprise distribution agreement.

They have some kind of right without any obligations? Care to expand?

> It seems to me that he probably believed he didn't do anything wrong, and as such had a moral right to retain his position because he believed he did nothing wrong

The latest reveal is that Joi Ito deliberately hid interactions with Epstein from the rest of the lab and from MIT.

His earlier denials were lies he told to keep his position.

The strongest possible form of your argument becomes 'He thought the behavior was fine but knew that others would disagree, so he deceived them to manage the situation', which is not exactly a slam dunk for your moral rights argument.

I'm guessing 'certain forums' is code for the PUA community?

You might want to think of 'women' as being a category with a lot of different and divergent people in it. Some of them like animals. Some of them don't. If they're into pets and you're into pets, then that might help open a conversation. But that's more like 'women who have a thing for dogs'.

The counterexample is that, when racist/fascist/white supremacist content became easier to access through online unmoderated forums such as 4chan, the level of online & offline activity and recruitment became higher.

Secondly, it's hardly news to these communities that they are disliked by others. Have you met an Edgelord?

I call bullshit.

What plan do you have in mind for _Cloudflare_ to create a culture change on _8chan_?

How does this fit into Cloudflare's strategy and competencies as a network provider?

Are you suggesting they have some obligation to provide service and to try and shape the community, or just that they are compelled to provide a commercial service to people who encourage massacres?

You haven't thought through your own suggestion.

You've focused on 1 and then used 2 against critics: 'smear people for telling the truth'. But doesn't that criticism apply to the original stories about Soros? How do you tell a smear from a balanced story? Doesn't that require understanding who is telling it and what they have at stake? In which case, 3 becomes relevant.

Also, you've pulled a straw-man on the anti-semitic front: that's not part of the article or argument. Pragmatically, a well-intentioned actor would show an effort to make criticism explicitly anti-semitic, given the racist undertones to large parts of the discussion.

It could definitely be done, but not making an effort on that part _when it is your job to know how the communication will be received_ is a signal that you don't mind the inference being made.

They might not be implying something racist, but they know others will infer something racist and they still went ahead. Do you think that is acceptable behaviour?