For dev-types and general tinker-problemsolver types, that's assumed.
I can't count how many things I've made, most of which I abandoned after I stopped needing them. Sometimes I just make a one line shell script that uses a command line util, and other cases I'll write a bigger "script" (higher level programming language" which often still leverages command line tools.
What's not clear to me is whether other participants of the meeting are aware of my sound while my mic is "muted".
I'm far less concerned about the videoconference system hearing me than my other meeting participants. This morning during a boring company-wide meeting I accidentally fell asleep (it was an early morning meeting and I was still in bed!)
All that said, it should really be a right of consumers that audio and video capture devices have a physical on/off switch.
It's a question of what you live for and where you find your worth. If you live for other people, and you find your worth in them, then you will direct your path accordingly.
If you find your worth from within, or perhaps from without in a very broad sense (making something big that the world needs/wants/admires), then 1:1 is not so important.
Maybe this is my pessimistic view, but most relationships don't last. Some of the ones that do last only because of complacency or discipline (but they arguably should dissolve).
Conscious memory seems to favor the positives. Unconscious memory favors the negatives. If you quickly raise your hand near a person who has been physically abused a child, even as an adult they may instinctively recoil. But if you ask someone about their lost relationship, they will often speak of the great things of their partner, ignoring the (perhaps incomprehensible or inarticulable) negatives.
Life is hopefully quite long. Relationships involve 2 (+?) people. During one's life, one hopefully changes a lot. Picture vectors in two dimensions. People who pair up are vectors that cross at one moment (brief) or run somewhat parallel for a period. Try as we might, adjusting our trajectories, it's practically impossible to maintain a parallel path without giving up some or all of our own development.
So realistically in our modern times, relationships are based on a period of relatively parallel trajectories. And when the distance between those vectors becomes to great, it's time to stop trying to maintain a connection. That involves some feelings of sadness, but it also offers new possibilities.
There's really a lot in this essay, and I'll forget or get before before I provide all the commentary I might want to.
> But she never did. She never agreed.
Your rights end where mine begin. And by that, I mean "my intolerance trumps whatever your opinion is".
That means the most flexible people, often the most rational, have to accept the intolerance and lack of flexibility of others to coexist.
I don't like my kitchen counter cleaned with a rag that becomes dirty upon first use and then adds bacteria on multiple following uses. I would rather the counter keep only the germs it currently has. Or better yet, I would prefer it be cleaned with a fresh towel or even light detergent and very hot water.
I don't like the toothpaste bottle to be buried in a basket under my wife's nightly consumables, such that when I go to bed later I have to dig through a lot of stuff to find the toothpaste. I would rather the bottle be left on the counter where both people can find it. But that bottle on the counter is a no-no. So I bend, but it pushes me a little more away every night.
> It was about consideration
I do not believe that consideration was the issue with TFA's wife. TFA had valid reasons for leaving a glass on the counter. Wife lacked consideration and pragmatism.
As an alien to earth, I realize my perspective may be warped. But it makes sense to me.
And as such, I think the problem with most relationships is ignorance and lack of ability to reason.
Reasons people feel how they feel:
- there is a practical time/money/pain cost between the alternatives
- there is a habit which is hard to change
- there is a behavior with no forethought and no post-evaluation
Some things have assessable costs. I could come up with any number of examples, but one very silly example would be parking. If I choose to park behind someone on a driveway instead of beside or on the street, it will take the starting and moving of my car (time, fuel, and minor wear and tear cost) to move my car out of the way so they can leave. Now in the larger consideration, perhaps there is no side-by-side room, and the street option is risky. Then it's a matter of risk balancing and personal time cost.
Some things are just habits, often learned from our upbringing. Someone who grows up with a particular scarcity will be extra sensitive to waste on that resource. Even when the resource is no longer restricted (what's the right word I'm looking for?), the habit remains. "Don't use so much water!". "Yes, but it takes 60 seconds for the hot water to reach the faucet, and proper washing requires (debatable) water temperature." Or "nothing should be left on the counter", so the toothpaste goes into a bin beneath many other things. So whomever comes next to brush must dig for the toothpaste. Amusingly (passively-aggressively) my solution to the toothpaste problem was to buy a freaking lot of them and get a new one each night, allowing them to pile up.
Finally, there are just behaviors we learned as kids before we had reason. Some things must be done a very specific way, and other things can be done any way. Unfortunately, two people from different families will have different combinations of specific and any. Then it comes down to realization of the behavior and rational analysis of the pros and cons, and perhaps then the alternatives.
I intentionally did not identify the poster. But if you look at recent submissions regarding birds and phys.org, you'll find them.
As for hyperbole, I think it's a valid concern. If that user is allowed to operate freely, (and assuming that user is being paid or is a bot), then we can expect many more like them to appear. Then indeed HN will be drowned in garbage submissions.
Unless the mods have analytics which identify odd patterns of behavior, they will depend on users to flag things. And if only a few users flag something, then most other users won't see it. Thus, it only gets "some" flags.
It seems more reasonable to judge a user by the volume of posts and submissions over time. Who legitmately has time or motivation to submit 10+ things per day? Or to do that several days in a short period? Even if that is a real human choosing to promote content, does that not suggest some behavior which is likely to be detrimental to HN as a gathering place?
Thank you for the suggestion!