Capital letters come from Roman script. Lowercase letters come from a medieval administrative script (Carolingian minuscule). So you could say that we are mixing two completely different scripts. This becomes very clear when you look at a text written entirely in lowercase letters: the typeface is so uniform that I, at least, find it very pleasant to look at. Unfortunately, this is not the norm. Instead, I am condemned to live in a world where I have to look at writing consisting of two obviously thrown-together scripts day in and day out. Schopenhauer was right: the world is a vale of tears!

Why is that important to you?

The way you write about it feels like you're going to be infected by it, altered by it, if you read it fully. Seems like an odd reaction.

Totally. It really annoys me.

I get distracted. The writer misses to accurately transmit the piece of information at its full extent.

It’s not a mistake, it’s a choice. Quite a common one among younger people who grew up using Slack at work and iMessage everywhere else.

It is a choice, and yet it is still a mistake...

Thanks. You understand me. Communication is hard and we have tools for doing a good job, why not using it? Individuals should raise the bar instead of embracing mediocrity.

I would never hear of these magazines if wasn't hackernews. They eventually pop up here. I was taking a look on it and... it was so well written!

Disqusting is the copious amount of trackers they inject in the websites.

For small websites a good start is to get comments by email, publishing only the ones that adds value to the article or conversation. Why? Because we have lots of noise done by social media. A way of curating the comments increase the quality of the website.

If the website gets traction, than it's good to consider a tool to facilitate the commenting and moderation.

> Disqusting

Bravo for this banger of a new word.

While many see it as a problem, kagi.com sees it as an opportunity.

> "...happiness to become one’s default state of mind."

I have read psychologists saying that "happiness as default state" is a social construct myth of modern times. You cannot be happy all the time, the fact of being unhappy sometimes is what drives you self-reflect and to chase meaning to your life. To feel pleasure you need to feel some pain.

>I have read psychologists saying that "happiness as default state" is a social construct myth of modern times.

Psychologists are what's the actual social construct myth of modern times.

>You cannot be happy all the time

That's not what "happiness as default state" implies though. It's about happiness being the disposition you opt for, as opposed to wallowing in misery and seeing fault in everything as your baseline.

"Default state" precisely conveys that it's not about "all the time". Just what you should strive to start from and return to.

Nope, its still vast majority of situation, not a healthy setup for most people. Is being content with one's life a state of happiness or just state of content?

We are splitting hairs here but since happiness is considered the ultimate goal and state (what's beyond that if its not the end?), I would say aim for being content with your life as a baseline, jump to an actual happiness when stars align and revert back.

Its cool enough place to be and definitely more maintainable long term, and as mentioned a seldom dip to misery is a very valuable correction and reminder to all how fleeting this all is.

Psychologists are a myth?

I suspect they mean that psychologists are more a problem than a useful profession.

They certainly are when they're poorly trained and not held to proper academic standards.

I've had more than one licensed psychologist attempt to proselytize to me. Granted, my location is part of the problem, but it still should never have happened. There are other, less rigorously trained people you can go to for that kind of thing and they're a dime a dozen. It objectively made things worse for me as some of my most major issues directly involve religion(s) pushed upon me as a child.

Not their existance, their utility

Do you believe the same thing about psychiatrists? How are we to deal with mental illness?

>How are we to deal with mental illness?

Ineffectively, if the current state-of-the-art is any indication :(

I would argue that perhaps you have confused happiness with joy, or I have confused happiness with a lack of sadness, or perhaps with satisfaction.

While I find that joy is a fickle and fleeting thing, I feel that I am happy most of the time, satisfied that things are as they must be, or at least close enough that the state of affairs does not poorly reflect on my efforts.

Sadness or grief make their appearance, but need not make life a poverty of happiness.

I think probably many people think that happiness and joy are the same thing, thus robbing themselves of happiness in an eternal pursuit of joy. If joy were constant, it wouldn’t be the joyful treasure that it is.

I tend to think of (a default state of) happiness as being akin to equanimity. Not indifference, but acceptance of life as it is right now because that tends to diffuse your suffering. Contentment would be another appropriate word for this I think.

I wish I had more joy in life especially when I meet people who just seem to exude it so well in their interactions. It seems like they are almost always joyful.

You didn't explain how you define joy and happiness, can you elaborate how they are different

In my understanding, Joy is the emotion of overt happiness. It elicits silly behavior, celebratory vocalisation, laughter, and hugging.

Happiness is the state of satisfied being devoid of feelings of remorse, emotional pain, grief, or anger. It is a state that accepts joy, that provokes appreciation, gratitude, and satisfaction. It is a generally open and creative state, that gravitates toward the positive.

It is possible to maintain a state of happiness amid unfavourable events and conditions if your mind and actions are guided by a moral framework, and even to maintain a sense of happiness through hardships and injustice if you have built the philosophical structure to separate your mind and sense of self from your circumstances.

Happiness is being content. You can be a generally happy person.

Joy is more exuberant - but more fleeting. You can't be a person constantly experiencing joy (except maybe as a bipolar during their manic phase)

I think in short:

- big things (e.g. someone dies) you cant avoid being sad

- small everyday things (e.g. someone cuts you off at the intersection) you have a choice to smile and treat it lightly or go all passive aggressive and spiteful.

Sometimes you have to find some middle ground wherever you can get it.

Like why curse a slow driver when you can have a 100% positive attitude?

"You can do it! You can do it! There is a gas pedal. You're almost there, don't give up!"

> You cannot be happy all the time, the fact of being unhappy sometimes is what drives you self-reflect and to chase meaning to your life.

Each time you go through a cycle of honest self-reflection, you grow emotionally stronger. When a similar situation arises again, it will not affect you as deeply as it did the first time. After enough cycles, you may reach a point where your default state remains largely unaffected by such events. This equanimity, that comes with a deep inner calm, allows a naturally happy default state to emerge.

I do agree a balance of pain and pleasure is necessary. But I also believe you can make your default state a gentle fluctuation between the two, rather than wild swings.

In my experience, this is largely a force of habit -- I one day found my default reaction to almost any event was to chastise myself, for example. If you can break this habit and return to a more tranquil medium, I think that's as close to being "always happy" as it's possible to get.

You may think you can change it but what if that came with the package? What if you were born bipolar or depressive?

Pleasure is not the same as happy. Probably no one, even the luckiest entity in the universe, can avoid to go through some painful emotion.

But how we handle raw emotions, within interpretation processes, is what makes all the difference.

Actually, an entity that would only go through an indefinitely long flow of pleasant emotions and still end up being depressed and feeling unsatisfied the whole time is perfectly conceivable.

>an entity that would only go through an indefinitely long flow of pleasant emotions and still end up being depressed and feeling unsatisfied the whole time is perfectly conceivable.

I don't think it's that rare.

Fortunately, the opposite is also true.

Happiness as the default state has nothing to do with being happy all the time. Perhaps you need to refine your understanding of “default”.

First let's start off that psychology is not like other fields, as it's often theories/opinions.

That statement is someone's way to describe what they found out to be best for them. Not an axiom for everyone.

And default doesn't mean always, it means that one's general state is happiness. For me, for that statement to make sense, the word "happiness" would be replaced with something like "being glad" (gladness?), as I always feel glad of myself/my life but I see happiness as something more active, like being sad. While I see this gladness as a passive state. But again, that's my personal take.

That's not what they said, they said a default state. You can't always be happy, but you can default to it when you have nothing else going on.

I would call that more content than happy. Interestingly in languages like Spanish, 'contento' is almost overlapping semantically with the word happy ('feliz') in its day-to-day usage, and I find it a more adequate usage of the concept.

So content is basically the baseline when no needs are impacting your state-of-mind, and happy would be the consequence of a positive event or result.

I agree

There's fundamental lack of emotional depth in our society as I believe you can be happy and displeased or in pain _at the same time_. I can say that I'm never unhappy but I do feel displeasure, anger and pain at times as these aren't opposites and don't cancel each other out in my model of the world.

When tragedy and pain are far more prominent than anything else, it kind of reduces to positive resolve.

If others can not feel joy from that in person, you're doing it wrong.

Never forget what it feels like when fate smiles on you, even when it's almost never.

I think that depends on how you interpret "happiness to become one’s default state of mind."

I think feeling happy is my default. I still get mad, hurt, sad, bored, etc. But when those feelings wear away, I return to a general state of happy contentment.

I strive for my default state to be "content", with fleeting moments of happiness

That passage came across to me as toxic positivity, but I hope that's not the case.

Being real is perhaps healthier and more honest than completely avoiding anything that isn't pure bliss or joy.

If happiness were truly a "default" state, it would stop registering as happiness at all

Default state doesn’t mean all the time though?

So much of the time it's only when launching the app.

Yeah, the subtle way to plant an idea. It's a crime again to a person have "certain nationalities".

The real concern isn't the nationality per se, it's the vulnerability to blackmail by the state that has jurisdiction over you. It's not a matter of personal responsibility, but nevertheless it has to be accounted for.

For example, I am an American citizen, but I have extended family in Russia, and I would fully expect a place like DoD to be wary of that solely on the basis that it makes me susceptible to blackmail by Russian govt agencies by threatening my family.

Yes, I know. My point is that writers could easily do it better.

Reviews like yours are increasing my interested towards Rust. Apparently the tools and ecosystem are great, build on solid concepts and foundation.

Rust has 3 major issues:

- compile times

- compile times

- long compile times

It isn't that big of a deal in small projects, but if you pull dependencies or have a lot of code you need to think about compilation units upfront.

How is Rust in terms of incremental compile time? Is incrementally recompiling on file in a large project quick? Hopefully link times aren't that bad.

One thing I like about the JVM is hot code reloading. Most of the time, changes inside a method/function takes effect immediately with hot code reloading.

Link times are the worst part but solveable with mold[1]/sold. Incremental compilations are usually an order of magnitude (or even two) faster than clean compiles but tbh that can still feel slow. Helped by using something like sccache[2] or even cranelift[3] when debugging. Still not as fast as having a hot-reloadable language but it gets you to a relatively pleasant speed still IME

[1] https://github.com/rui314/mold [2] https://github.com/mozilla/sccache [3] https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift

I've never been successful in getting sccache to really speed up projects, but then again only release builds have _really_ been impossible for me, and that's only when I was working on Deno which was absolutely massive.

sccache sped up my clean compiles by 2x on some projects, but it's a very YMMV solution most of the time

We had issues with long compile times at deno. Release builds were brutal, debug builds were OK as long as they were incremental. It was likely one of the largest open-source rust applications, but we were still quite productive.

Most likely you'll have years before it's an issue and there are mitigations.

My Linkedin feed is very bad. I am ok in reading about interesting companies milestones or my contacts sharing opportunities or work related opinions. What I get is endless self-promotion and corporate bullshit. A place where everybody is the opposite of authentic, acting weirdly and cringe as they were being watched by co-workers and possible recruiters (and actually they are).

It's impressive how governments never quit trying to implement this harmful idea.

Because people keep believing that there must be a technical solution that will improve security without causing harm. They are just uninformed, IMO.

Just like governments pretty much don't do anything about climate change and the mass extinction that is currently happening, even though they may well end up killing most people on Earth. If they understood how bad it is, they would act. But they don't.

It's like any other crime. They cannot stop you from stealing, for example. By doing it, you will not be a lawful citizen.

You mean "an illegal?"

nah they meant unlawful. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unlawful

I know. It was a pity comment born out of my frustration with certain classes of offenders being labelled as "illegals" while others are granted human-first language like "unlawful citizens."

It wasn't a comment in keeping with the site guidelines but that was rooted in my continuing frustration with the community here denying the dehumanising nature of language like "illegals."

I'm aware of the definition of unlawful but thank you for your effort and apologies for the wasted time.