This would be convenient for post-production and editing of video, e.g. to aid colour grading in Davinci Resolve. Currently a lot of manual labour goes into tracking and hand-masking in grading.
The family is a system, with different roles played by each participant. For instance, in toxic families, there is often one scapegoat, with an anxious attachment style, that affords the avoidant types in the family to participate in delusions.
What are the dynamics like of everyone in your family?
I wanted to say the same: parents don't treat all children the same. For example, I have the feeling that the first child is the "practice" child. The parents learn from the mistakes made with them and don't repeat them with the children that follow. I don't know if there's any research to back this up and yes, I am a first born.
I think sequel kids, more than anything, benefit from having a trailblazer to refer to. It's no doubt true that parents get better at the job, but kids learn from demonstration. Older sibling is hypersensitive and has a hard time keeping friends around -> I better learn to swallow my pride. That kind of thing.
I've observed the same - unfortunately, first time parents are forced to try out all kinds of parenting experiments on their first-born, before they figure out how to be "good" parents. And subsequent kids, especially if they have them after some gap, get the benefit of this experience. Add to the woes of the first-born, they not only have to deal with normal sibling jealousy (of having to share their parents affection), but also resolve the emotional issue of why their younger siblings have an "easier" time (i.e. why their parents treat them "differently").
Remember how the modern "nucular" household is largely based on a modernization of the Roman patriarchal property distribution model, where the oldest male was ascribed the identities of all members of his household, and vice versa?
That must've been extremely efficient for legal and accounting purposes, once. But, well, the only theory of mind anyone could develop in such circumstances involves grinding minds into fine paste. (There's a reason the Stoics are "seeing" an AI-driven resurgence, even though what'd be most appropriate for their target audience is probably again Skinner.)
Remember how a great deal of how we live our "personal" lives was invented in a slaveholding state which mandated belief in gods and demons. And the rest in another.
We are taught to consider all of this legacy cultural structure in terms of "haha how quaintly did people live 1000-2000-3000 years ago, were they stupid". Yet most of it lives on in some marginally altered form due to sheer global force of habit.
Take Western human naming schemes for example: does your government permit you to change your name? do you inherit one or both granddads' names? do you get a patronym? extra personal names? are you also the security force for a place, like a Freiherr de So-and-So? and at what exact number of levels of recursive self-reflection does the word "person" stop meaning the role played, and starts meaning the human playing it?
(When you're done with "identity", continue with "time-keeping" and begin to understand another psychological phenomenon causing much suffering - people's generalized inability to discern cause and effect.)
The name - the sound through which individuals are conditioned to respond to the concepts of selfhood and identity (Foobert Barber Baznix! you come here right this instant! it is not me but you who is sleepy and hungry!) - is one of many such extremely arbitrary implementation details.
Out of those emerges the thing sold to us by our caregivers and educators as "normal life" before we are able to know any better. That's the main way "primary socialization" has ever worked: a non-consensual intergenerational transmission of habits that have as much to do with self-soothing in the face of mortality as with practical concerns; in the end they just ascribe "imaginariness" to your memories of your mind being wiped, and the "you" is ready to go.
Now, in the context of all those vague and admittedly entirely hypothetical "implementation details", proceed to imagine the troop of clothed primates not as a flat list of incidental blood relations, but as a dynamic system, a living group of conscious things; if you're feeling particularly scifi - a sort of distributed organism. What would be the purpose of the scapegoat organ in that organism? Do individual primates have an equivalent organ in their bodies? (Probably not the one you're thinking of but also a valid guess)
There is no purpose of the scapegoat organ. This is one of the biggest fallacies people have with regards to natural selection and economics.
Standard neoclassical economics theory tells people that they have perfect foresight and know the configuration/structure of all future possibilities. In other words, there are no unknown unknowns. You know everything you don't know yet.
People have the same belief with regards to natural selection being efficient. It just seemingly chooses the most efficient organisms.
In reality there is a developmental process with no guarantee of optimality or progress toward optimality. It is possible to get stuck in local maxima and it takes activation energy to get out of it.
The scapegoat organ exists because the perceived marginal cost of fixing and investigating an incident or problem is considered more expensive than deflecting blame.
The Iranians destroyed their water supply with scapegoats so trying to find a purpose in the scapegoat organ seems pretty insane. It's more like a weakness that leadership does not have a complete picture of the problems that its people are facing. You could argue that scapegoating is an expression of a lack of power. You have just enough power to blame others, but not enough to solve the problem.
Is it that fuzzy though? If it was would language not adequately grasp and model our realities? And what about the physical world itself: animals are modeling the world adequately enough to navigate it. There's significant gains to make from modeling _enough_ of the world, without falling into hallucinations of purely statistical associations of an LLM.
I’ve come to realize that HN doesn’t actually represent any facet of actual hacker culture
It’s by and for established tech VCs and the types of startups that get funded
In today’s political climate, HN is ultra-conservative in terms of what ideas are welcomed for discussion and that couldn’t be further from what hackers really stand for
I wonder if they’ll feel any guilt or responsibility when it all burns down for not letting hackers talk about things that very clearly need to be talked about.
> When you're volunteering out of love in a market society, you're setting yourself up to be exploited.
I sound like a broken record but there's unifying causes to most issues I observe in the world.
None of the proposed solutions address the cause (and they can't of course): public scrutiny doesn't do anything if account creation is zero-effort; monetary penalization will kill the submissions entirely.
In a perfect world OSS maintainers would get paid properly. But, we've been doing this since the 90s, and all that's happened is OSS got deployed by private companies, concentrating the wealth and the economic benefits. When every hour is paid labour, you pick the AWS Kafka over spinning up your own cluster, or you run Linux in the cloud instead of your own metal. This will always keep happening so long as the incentives are what they are and survival hinges on capital. That people still put in their free time speaks to the beautiful nature of humans, but it's in spite of the current systems.
My least favourite part of this timeline: anyone who writes well gets classified as AI. Some of us press Option+- to insert an em dash and have been for years.
I've been using the compose key for over a decade but only recently discovered you can type compose <dash><dash><dash> to produce an em dash. Before then, I always just typed a double-dash (--) to simulate it.
reply