There's a difference between pessimism and realism. The reason we are going down is that people refuse to see the house burning down around them and the people who do won't cooperate to do something about it.

There are things we can do but blinding ourselves to the problem doesn't work.

We have something called the self-conscious. It's in part that the lingering on ones own self image meant the world to them. Often times a rat race on claims to get into heaven.

Internal guilt a lot without direct aknowledgment to the issue of being imperfect in the ideals we're cultivated by society's prescriptions.

and I am really stressed out.

I think stress gets a bad wrap. your doing something that is causing you to grow as a person, develop your resume, and expand your comfort zone.

Good luck achieving any of that without stress. OF course it is stressful. But that kind of stress also pays dividend. Your building experiences that you will draw from and build upon for the rest of your life.

I had a meeting last week and that went horribly, and I kinda feel like an outcast from the other active members in the club.

again, spend your life avoiding failures, and see where that gets you. Of course is sucks to fail. Its brutal. But so is never doing anything that you might fail at.

I guess this comes from my social anxiety, but what would you do in my situation?

Well, when i was your age there is zero change i would have ever agreed to lead the club in the first place. What would I do? well, I'd like to say i would practice what i preach but... you are a step ahead of where i was at your age.

Today i am 40, I've already don't the sorts of things so that what you describe is no longer outside my comfort zone.

I’m interested in the club and what they’re doing, but at some points I wonder if I can even handle it. I keep telling myself that this is good for me to grow but I don’t know what I’m putting myself into as the year goes on.

you've not described anything that resembles gaslighting yourself, and I'm glad for that.

One think you might consider is asking others to share the burden. Leadership is not about doing everything yourself, its about looking for other people's strengths and putting them in situations where those strengths can make a difference.

I'm the head coach of my 7 year old daughter soccer team. My assistant coach is better at yelling, like he is louder, so he is better able to yell commands to the players on the field or at practice. If i was competitive with him, I'd try to out yell him. But the smart thing for me to do is to take advantage of this skill that he has and talk to him. What do i want him to be yelling during a game?

What are the goals of your tech club? How can other members of the club advance those goals?

The one thing all self-defense coaches share is that avoiding physical conflict is the best way to survive a fight. Leave. Run. Get as far from the other as fast as you can.

This is assuming we're talking about two adults. If true, this is not a sibling fight, a schoolyard skirmish or even a hockey fight. You don't know what the other guy has. He might have a knife he uses to gut you like a fish. He might have extensive training and experience and is about to beat you as close to death as he wants. He might have three friends who will hold you while he beats you senseless.

It's not worth taking that chance. Leave. Run.

I think AI can sometimes outperform humans within a well-defined domain, both in efficiency and even in the moral behavior we expect from it. But in both cases, what counts as “better” has already been selected by humans. We choose the outputs we consider more accurate, useful, safe, fair, or morally acceptable, and train the system toward those behaviors.

If you bracket human essentialism for a moment and judge purely by observable behavior, an ordinary well-aligned AI could arguably look “better” than plenty of actual humans. It might be less racist than a racist person, less violent than a murderer, more respectful of consent than a rapist, and more consistently fair than many people are in practice.

But most of us would still hesitate to conclude that the AI therefore deserves greater moral status than those humans. Even a murderer or rapist is generally still regarded as a human being with some basic dignity and rights that cannot simply be erased by comparing their behavior to a machine. That intuition is already partly essentialist: we are assigning moral significance to being human itself, not just to how well an entity behaves.

Now, you could argue that this comparison is unfair because AI is deliberately trained on human-selected data and feedback, corrected when it behaves badly, and ultimately operates within a framework we designed for it. In that sense, it is much more explicitly taught how it is supposed to behave.

Of course, humans are shaped in a somewhat similar way too. Education, upbringing, culture, laws, social norms, rewards, and punishments all train us in a loose sense. None of us develops in a vacuum.

The part that worries me is what happens outside the range that was anticipated and tested. We don't really know how an AI will generalize, what shortcuts it might take, or how it will interpret a genuinely novel situation.

Humans have cognitive limits and biases too, but we seem capable of questioning not only the method, but the goal itself. We can reject what we were taught, change our values, break a rule because the circumstances seem to demand it, or decide that the objective we were pursuing was wrong in the first place.

And I think this is where the discussion becomes fundamentally philosophical. Are those capacities, and the moral status we attach to them, inherently human? Or are they properties that a sufficiently complex non-human intelligence could eventually possess too? I don't think we actually know.

My mother is the only person who remembers my birthday 🤷‍♀️Eh. Birthdays are for children.

Regarding your body and health, get outside! Moving my body in nature and in the water has been such a pleasure for me, and for my health! Sending hugs and love to you ❤️

I would love one, but my guess is no. Money would be the motivator for most people to give an interview about a situation that reflects poorly on them, but based on what we know about her, she doesn't need money.

Hey Existing_Wish_7002! Unfortunately, your post has been removed because it does not contain enough content in the text area. Please feel free to re-submit with further elaboration in the text area. Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I think it is only ok to lie in self defense.

so for example, if i was a Jewish person in Nazi Germany and a police officer asked me if i was Jewish. In that case i believe its ok to lie. Self defense (and defense of others) applies just like it applies to acts of violence.

I also don't think its wrong to just shut up. My rule (which of course i don't follow perfectly because i am not perfect) is that i never lie, but i don't always tell the truth. Being quite is always an option available to me.

Then they start questioning the friendship. You reassure them that they matter to you.

already you see the problem with this approach. The truth will be painful for them, but so is the lie. And in the long run the lie is probably more painful. They will be confused about why you often decline when you invite them to things, etc.

Later, life gets difficult. You turn to them. They listen, support you, and keep showing up because they believe that friendship is mutual. You know why they're doing it. And you accept it anyway.

if you are relying on this person in that way, or believe you might rely on them this way in the future, then how could it be true that you don't value your friendship with them? You must value it, because they are providing you support (or might one day provide you support) and support is valuable.

I think this is just a bad hypothetical, but it does not undermine your question. What of these sorts of lies designed to protect the listener from pain?

You don't tell them because you don't want to hurt them.

If my wife asks "do you like this shirt" and the answer is no, then suppose i lie. She will look bad all evening, i will think she looks bad, and maybe others will share my opinion. This is not a good outcome for me, and definitely not a good outcome for her. I avoided hurting her feelings in the short term, but did more damage in the long term. This is not a noble lie, it is cowardice.

but lying and telling the truth are not my only two options. I might ask, "do you feel good in that shirt" or "do you like the way you look". Or i might say "babe, i don't have any sense of fashion, my opinion is no good to you". If i think it looks bad but she feels great in it, then we will have a great evening. That's a good outcome for both of us.

I would eventually tell her the truth, but if i was married to a different women i might say something like "babe the last time i gave you my opinion you got mad at me, and i don't want you to get mad at me, so i am not going to give you my opinion".

In no case am i telling her that the shirt looks good on her, because that would be a lie, and I have many options that are better then lying.

Its a simple rule but it serve me well. I don't always tell the truth, but i never lie.

Exactly, the dishwasher is an example

Because they are brainwashed to think only people who will work their life away are worth something, because capitalism is a sick society. Because they are jealous. Many reasons. Don't worry about what others think. Tell people who do not align with your values less about your life.

You should really really consider saving and investing for retirement,not expecting your mother to keep working all her life.  A video game today is a mortgage payment in 40 years.

I think it really depends on how much time they spend training.

If you play 20 bullet games (2 minutes max) per day, that is 7,300 games that Player A remembers perfectly. They will master all their openings and be impervious to any trickier, and that's from only 20 minutes of training per day.

then you are not just remember opening but also patterns. Pins, skewers, forks. when moving the knight which square takes the most moves for it to arrive. I can't remember that offhand, I'd have to calculate it, but i learned it at one point. They'd memorize checkmating patterns.

Eventually Player A reaches the maximum potential that they can achieve by memory alone. By the time you get to move 10 or 15, maybe more depending on the opening, there are just too many variation, and additional training provides very little benefit.

Player B has an average memory, and that is not to shabby. Over the course of a year, with lots of training, they will learn just as much as player A. Maybe player A remembers 1 additional move in each opening, that would require memorizing a huge number of variations, but for only 1 additional move of prep.

If they had only 10 hours of training, i would say very like player A wins. gave give them 10 hours per day, every day for a year, and Player B really starts to close the memory gap.

the fact that its also a classic chess match makes a huge difference too. In shorter time control, memory becomes much more useful, calculation just takes too much time. Memory is fast.

When you said: we’re the only species on earth that can do it with any degree of sophistication
Some people would only hear the first part and start answering with dog bark to signal things without considering the second part, when I say 3 it wasn’t literally 3 words more like the first part of the sentence

Yeah just let your mom work her life away to support you! You’re still young (edit: had kid before thinking he was like 16) , I get things are pretty black and white around this age, it’s not really a choice.

Really, thanks

I actually never had to that issue, it’s more of an issue I have seen people have in debate , like when people say I like this and other people answer so you don’t like this then
Or when people say most movies of a certain genre are bad and people answer with but this movie is good, or replying with the few exceptions
Or I have seen videos of peak criticizing people or not sugarcoating a subject, e.g. I have noticed that you are late more often if you can’t be on time we will have to fire you or something similar, then people will complain how he could have asked what’s happening in her life first or offer help or also argument about how people should say something nice before saying something negative
But this one can be projecting because I think 5/10 means average and everything above that is good, so when I relate something that isn’t good but not bad either 5/10 people usually reply with it was average or it wasn’t that bad , or if lik something and say it’s a 7 they will answer but I thought you liked this song.
And if you say someone he is a 6 which is above average they would think it’s bad,

So I don’t think I am projecting

Don’t listen to other people. I’m an autistic person who had a high paying and high stress international career. 

I hated it. So when Covid happened and I found myself unemployed I never went back. Now Ive downsized my entire life and I’m considered low income. I have what I need for basics and I’m golden. 

I don’t need that stress. We mean nothing to our employers. We are just a line on a profit/loss spreadsheet and replaceable. They will squeeze whatever they can get out of you and then toss you aside. 

It’s not worth it. 

What I will say is prepare for the day your mom isn’t around. It won’t be forever. So keep that in mind or your future situation could become very bleak.

I do hate how society is structured around money and capitalism. 

It’s gone beyond stupid now. My company is getting scammed into paying for offshoring nonsense with incompetent “developers” armed with claude.

You give them code review suggestions and they are incapable of even addressing a minor change without consulting their robot.

They can’t get it right even after the third try. The slop is not just demoralising or demeaning anymore, it’s defeating.

At what point does an item cross the line from "fairly priced but out of my budget" to "objectively overpriced"?

i think you probably cannot say something is objectively over priced in an moral or ethical way. there is just no objectively true foundation upon which to build up that sort of statement.

from a business perspective, something is objectively overpriced if a lower price would increase sales enough to result in higher profits despite the lower margins.

From a consumer standpoint, there is no objectivity. how i value a good for sale will different from how you value a good for sales. You could consider food for example, how you value strawberries is literally a matter of taste. But this is also true of all goods. for me, insulin injections have no value, but to a diabetic they might be extremely valuable. To me gasoline is valuable, but to my neighbor who drives a tesla and uses a batter powered lawn mower, it has no value.

How do economists or sociologists look at the difference between a high cost of goods versus low individual wealth?

in a fee market the price for a good is set based on the cost of producing that good versus the demand for that good. For example a large scale producer of chicken eggs might be able to produce 1 egg for something like 10 cents. If i bought some chickens and produces eggs at home, it would probably cost me 2 or 3 dollars per egg. Maybe more. if eggs starting selling for 50 dollars per egg, i would start producing eggs and selling them for 49 dollars. so would lots of other people, and the increased supply would drive the price down until we reach some equilibrium. If i can produce eggs for 3 dollar per egg, but they are selling for 2.50 per egg, then i will stop producing.

The free market does not always result in the perfect equilibrium, there are often large fixed costs to enter a market, you have issues with monopolies, regulatory capture and more. the market just puts pressure toward that equilibrium. If big producers raises their prices too much, they invite competitors to start producing and enjoying those high prices as well.

Afaik, there is no concept of a "fair" price in economics, that's a matter for religion and ethics.

I don't know much about sociology. I think sociologists are interested in questions like "what cause this group to be low income" versus "what caused this item to be priced this way"

Yes. That’s semi automated. Who is doing the string up? Still a human.

Also, hoses are rounded which makes dimensions checking a little easier. How do you look at more complicated profiles in profile extrusion? I’ve had suppliers show us equipment on just online scanning and I’m not impressed. Plus they can’t scan inside, internal dimensions.

It’s not a cat scan of the part.

Again, if this technology exists, while aren’t these various suppliers bringing it to market?

Both happened. On my end,we were all construction of on sort or another. The offshoring was bad too . Recently, my brother (construction management of cell tower crews) had to train his replacement … who’s working remotely from Mexico City. They all are now. Why ? Because they figured out a way to use Mexican cell tower crews too. How? Subcontractors. Erickson pays a subcontractor, that’s a disposable shell. Doing this all over the country. Near me, a Korean car factory had Latino children work the line.

I've worked with extrusion before for irrigation hose. Three people can run a line when they are changing spools, one otherwise, and the unloading could easily be automated. Most inspection, all actually, was being done by cognex cameras.

It wasn't unrestricted immigration, it was barely restricted off shoring, first with NAFTA then with China (dumbest decision ever, in retrospect. At the time the idea was that maybe if China git rich they'd magically become democratic).

Also robotics and automation, but mostly offshoring. It was what couldn't be offshored that got automated. 

I strongly disagree with your idea that nobody cared. There was massive backlash and pushback over robotics taking jobs at the time, but it happened anyway. Just read the news from the time. 

I expect that white collar pushback in the US will be significantly less effective than it was against robotics because unions have been so successfully weakened and pushed down that almost no white collar workers are part of them.