Reality check for those who dream to be off the grid, while still benefiting from the grid they despise.

LinkedIn? I think LinkedIn is the only platform that demands a specific style that is completely alien to the internet.

I wanted to read about their AphyOS operating system, but it seems that information about it is also quite minimal. So I assume an modified stock android, with their services bolted on.

This comment is an excellent example of low quality content. It's all wrong and hallucinated to point out a conflict between things that do not exist. An AI can generate this crap, but only if you ask it the wrong way.

Maybe publishing on HN should have a cost.

Bezos was at least controversial to some when he was amazon CEO, now he started spending his fortunes and looks like a complete douche.

A touch of humbleness creates sympathy with people that cope with reality.

I think moralism is an side effect of the demise of spiritualism in the west. We somehow have to shape moral values, the lack of a framework for it makes it feel blunt and chaotic.

That being said, I find it odd to moralize on moralism. We have way too many people in power that are awful humans and do a bad job and never get punished.

Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.

There is no balance.

(This isn't about buffet, idc, just about your interwoven opinion.)

Yes, we seem to lack the framework and vocabulary to discuss morality anymore. You may be right that this is tied to the demise of spiritualism (or perhaps organized religion).

The point is that moralism makes everyone blind and see in black and white.

Instead of seeing the nuance, you’d see everything that comes out of Elon Musk or Israel whoever you’ve managed to convince yourself is that current villain, as bad - without attention to details. More than that - you’d waste your time arguing whether they are “good” or “bad”, instead of focusing on specific actions, which is what society as a whole seems to enjoy seem to gravitate towards, and what increases polarization and reduce proper discourse.

I have a huge problem with your use of "moralism" as a term. For me it appears to be used pejoratively as an act to weaken the concept of morals at large. (Which isn't your invention but something you probably picked up.)

We made a machine that is driven by emotions and rewards short and exaggerated interactions. On the surface it's black and white, but in each such situations there is also nuanced discussions and people that reflect things. I often also carry such moral debates to friends, I assume others do as well. There is at least a portion of nuance. Saying it's always black and white, is black and white thinking itself.

What I would agree with is that groupthink is a problem. People choose sides depending on who or which group said it. Also virtue signalling, as it's often just (unconscious) reputation management and hinders progress.

You are clearly describing "villainizing" people or groups. This is actually the opposite of moralism, which would be criticizing specific violations of morals.

Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.

It's pretty strange to see "whoever you've convinced yourself is the current villain" next to, you know, actual villains. Who do you think qualifies to be an actual villain, if they don't?

Lol I don't think people had to convince themselves of anything regarding the examples you sited, they let everyone know who they are on their own

> And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?

Morals are necessary for humans to live together. We all shape them, we are all entitled to do so, they are inevitable. We encode morals into laws if we deem it necessary. But that doesn't originate from an individual in a functioning democracy. It's a process, not a individual decision. Each individual can decide to stand for it's own morals. A large public backlash is a sign that you acted against public morals, you don't have to agree, but you have to deal with it. That's how a society works if everyone is free to speak and has a tiny bit of power.

> Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.

I didn't mean any of that, I don't even know how you come up with that conclusion. My example simply expresses that a simple act of theft can ruin a persons life, while powerful people cause much more damage and get away with it.

(opinion) current "democratic" systems structurally have a tendency to put the worse people at the top (amoral/immoral/corrupt etc.). with that assertion, swapping to random people would probably prove an improvement.

I am pretty sure most people don't care how their steak made it's on their table.

I think most people do care if it weren't very difficult, even illegal, to find out.

Thats was Jamie Oliver, right?

I really don't concede the point. Kids see food they aren't accustomed to eating blended together and fed to them by people they trust (Oliver is a celebrity in the UK).

What they aren't seeing is the chicken eggs they're eating was laid by a hen that was shat on by the chicken above it while sitting on a bed made of the cadaver of the chicken that held the pen before it.

Steak is the meat that people pay the most attention to in this regard! People will pay hundreds of dollars for a few ounces of steak solely based on how the cow was raised and fed.

For steak, I disagree with the article about stigma of eating bugs. Feeding cows bugs will save money, no doubt, and that might help cost on the low end of the beef market. Steak is a different thing though. A "bug-raised, bug-finished" steak would have to be incredible to overcome the stigma.

Comparing high end, connoisseur based food like wagyu to the plastic wrapped supermarket meat most folks buy day to day isn't a good comparison. Both things exist; there isn't only one way people think (or don't think) about their food in this way.

Similarly with whisky - some folks care deeply some of the time about a particular whisky made by a particular distillery in a particular way in a particular place. This is fun and interesting and there is a lot to appreciate there. That doesn't mean there isnt a massive market for "well" whisky or the flavored ones where they mix up all the lower quality whisky they can get their hands on in bulk then add cinnamon or peanut butter syrup to it until people drink it again.

In the same way people generally don't LIKE the conditions of food animals it doesn't prevent their purchase, especially if it reduces cost or increases availability.

There are probably a fair share of people that care. But I said "most" and stand by it. Maybe you are american? Around here we don't ask how the cattle was fed, maybe in high end restaurants and markets, but that is obviously a minority.

It's so lazy and dumb. The wildest thing about it, is that they could mostly delay required cookies to the second contact, first interaction or at the time it's actually required. Raw first contact engagement can be tracked cookieless.

Did Jon state that he intends to release as open source? I am not sure he is the guy to the stressful route. If it all he would probably go long release cycles without considering public feedback too much.

He also stated recently that he doesn't care too much about language design at a syntax level, or better said it's not his top focus as the overarching concepts are more important to him.

I think there is a chance that people may have a hard time to adopt to the language. His strong focus on gamedev will further cut down the audience. It will certainly draw a lot of attention but a massive adoption is highly questionable.

He said that for some period, the compiler will not be open source, the language will. Whether the compiler will become OS or not, I am not sure. But I think he just wants to get the spec done beforehand. I think he mentioned that the compiler code might be purchased via paid licence? I am not certain but as I am not a AAA studio, I do not care either way.

The language is in closed beta, there isn't exhaustive details available. You can see interviews and some details on YT if you look up Jon(athan) Blow with suitable topics.

I meant that I had not heard that both Zig and Odin were inspired by Jai

Oh at least ginger bill does, I remember bill talking about odin's context feature which was loosely inspired by jai.