I had a similar experience where I was also assured the data was “doubly protected, it’s secured by a password here and re-secured at the remote site.”
Besides that immediately making me question their security, it is a great example how people trust things without much thought. I’ve heard of calls for statistics to be pushed over calculus to improve math literacy in the general population, perhaps some cybersecurity courses should be pushed over “learn to code” to improve tech literacy.
Written and illustrated as a kids book, but even adults will be edified by the stories here [1]: 101 Orthodox Saints. All are stories of faith and are quite inspiring. (Just a heads up, a lot of the saints were martyred, so you should consider how to approach those conversations with your kids. The book is delicate, but doesn’t shy away from the reality of their deaths)
An eye-opening perspective came to me a few years ago when I first heard the quote,” When you’re 20, you care what everyone thinks, when you’re 40 you stop caring what everyone thinks, when you’re 60, you realize no one was ever thinking about you in the first place“[0]
That can be good and bad, but is a personally useful frame of reference for the world. It helps to not take things too personally, but also to be intentionally active in people’s lives when I _want_ to be considered.
But it's only half true. The anxiety over how others' perceive you is perhaps overblown, but you'd discount a whole lot of anxiety as irrational if you say that nobody forms judgments about you.
I used to think that way, too. I used to tell myself, "This is who I am," "I am authentic," "Who cares what they think."
If your boss thinks you are an incompetent professional, or a rude and inadequate human being, or a weakling who gives in under pressure, it doesn't even matter if they are right or wrong, it's a big deal. The same goes for friends, family and all other people with whom we interact. We may or may not care, or care about some and not others, we may prefer "authenticity" to "appearance," but it is relevant. One thing I have learned over time: people think about you, not always and not all people. And you think about others, not all and not all the time.
The "no one cares what you do" is often an overreaction to insecurity.
It crosses boundary when it affects others though. i.e. in professional settings and performance related categories.
Being authentic does not translate to being a jerk or straight up sucking at work. But I don't quite worry about the fact that I'm growing bald or wearing a 15 year old tshirt half the time.
> But I don't quite worry about the fact that I'm growing bald or wearing a 15 year old tshirt half the time.
That's a very good example, and I use it for a question.
Let's say you are growing bald, you have been single for years, you have problems finding a partner, and it happens that (it is largely true according to my experience) women prefer men with hair (there are women who prefer bald, but having hair allows you to razor shave, so it means you can do hair and no hair).
It is expected that a hair transplant, for which you have the necessary money, will increase your chances of finding a partner from 10% to 70%, however you want to interpret these numbers.
Do you think that undergoing a hair transplant means (a) worrying excessively about the opinion of others, and thus you don't do it, (b) realizing that the world works a certain way and that listening to its feedback and adapting is, at least occasionally, a wise decision, and then having a transplant?
If you change your physical appearance to increase the chances of finding a partner, you are increasing the chances of attracting the wrong people.
Why do you assume that attracting more people (b), or having a partner, is better than being single (a)?
I'm not sure if adapting is always better. Especially, when morality and rules in society are evolving constantly. If society prefered tattooed guys, over non-tattooed, should you embrace your personality (a) or put ink under your skin (b) to be more desirable?
If we began, correctly, according to genetic and sociological findings, to think that our behavior is as much defined by genes as our physical traits are, we would also begin to think differently about ourselves.
That is, we might begin to think that our generosity, intelligence, kindness, and admirable determination are as much a product of ourselves--that is, of our choices, sufferings, struggles, and genius--as a full head of hair or being long of legs.
But we tend to believe, especially in modern times (think about the ancient Greek "kalokagathìa"), that our character, our intelligence should be admired and make candid souls fall in love with us.
In contrast, physical traits that are not so popular, say, among the ladies--whether being short, bald or graceful in movement like an elephant in a china shop--we tend to believe, or want to believe, that are of little importance, something circumstantial, which only superficial people would focus on.
I'm pretty utilitarian about things like this, being authentic here just means I don't quite care if my hair is gone, but if someone who I do care about cares about that my hair stays, I might be convinced to go through some of these hoops.
What I'm trying to get at is that most people are way too concerned about things that does not really matter. Either other people form an opinion that has no relevance, or that other people don't have an opinion but anxiety kicks in and one think they do. There are perfectly valid cases where opinions will have an impact but they are mostly going to be very obvious and rare in between.
It’s not easy to just stop caring about what people think of you or a lot of people would do it. We’re built to respond to social pressure whether we like it or not. The few that can not care (ie sociopaths) do incredibly well in our current society.
Of course people form judgments about you. But it is very easy to exaggerate how consequential these judgments are. In the end, people are remarkably tolerant. They may think e.g. that you are an inconsiderate lout but that is perfectly ok with them as long as this does not hamper them in their own pursuits. Call it constructive disinterest.
one way to look at it might be realizing that people mostly don't judge you but a stereotype they project onto you. or simply have their judgement clouded by their mood. with a bad mood seeking for people to judge badly and good mood seeking to judge people positively. also what they judge about you is often more telling about what is going on with them and their life, so at the end of the day most people judge themselves. in all meditation practices the goal is to stop judging and instead observe - for a good reason - it's healing b/c then you also stop judging yourself all the time.
> people mostly don't judge you but a stereotype they project onto you.
This point deserves expansion.
Goffman's approach is how I first learned it. In order to explain the complexities of the world including the social world, people learn to typify behaviors. Typifications can become frames when they are used to interpret people's actions[1], "She did this because she's a woman" or "He did this because he's tired" where woman and tired are framing devices. Even "I did this because I was upset."
It takes a lot of work to resist framing people's actions. Perhaps it's even impossible to truly apprehend unframed behavior since even language itself is a framing device. But, seeing people closer to who they are is always valuable, and overly applying frames or rushing to frame peoples' actions does them an injustice to seeing them for who they are.
1. These are specifically frames which explain behavior. There are an infinite variety of frames. Browsers are frames, this comment being on HN is a frame.
I came upon this today and thought you might enjoy it.
> An absolute perspective, one of unconditioned objectivity, would, as Nietzsche says, have us “think an eye which cannot be thought at all, an eye turned in no direction at all, an eye where the active and interpretative powers are to be suppressed, absent, but through which seeing still becomes a seeing-something, so it is an absurdity and nonconcept of eye that is demanded.”
That's a helpful perspective. Whenever I feel social anxiety or the spotlight effect creep up, I also try to remember how little I'm actually thinking about what others are doing around me. Maybe it's obvious, but simply flipping the point of view in that moment can help you not judge yourself so much.
Yes I do something similar and it seems to help. I'll ask myself, "How do I imagine this person might currently feel when they think about __?" And rotate thru different scenarios. Often I'll quickly realize how uncertain I am about their internal situation. I like how you talk about flipping it, maybe I can imagine how that person might imagine how I'm feeling right now as well. Thank you!
This of course only applies to the people who don't matter.
When you're going to face prison time for using your rights or helping other people use their rights, people are clearly thinking about you.
There's no lack of doctors in very public view right now.
Maybe nobody cares specifically about the doctor in particular, but they don't care about not ruining the doctor's life, let alone the woman who gets the abortion
People still care very much about what Warren Buffett says... I think it's all about the value you generate during your lifetime, nut there's also the factor that people care about what Buffett says because they want to gain benefits from what he says, not because he's a particularly radiant guy and the life of the party.
My understanding, to put it in AWS EC2 pricing terms, is that we do not pay the market "spot" rate for electricity (variable, often less than what you might pay elsewhere, but could spike up) - which is what Texas allowed. Typically we pay the "on demand" rate which is fixed. Large energy users probably negotiate "reserved" pricing.
My point being, we pay the market rate, those massive hikes are just built-in over a long period of time.
That only works if the demand curve (the price the market will bear at given levels of shortage) and the cost curve (the actual price to produce the energy) match up.
In fact they never do, especially in this market. Texas producers weren't spending 100x (or whatever) more to produce that electricity, that spike just reflected the amount that customers who "had to keep the lights on" were willing to bear. In fact total utility costs are basically flat. They didn't hire 100x more employees or work 100x more hours to get things running again. They didn't have to build 100x more substations, etc...
And that's why spot pricing is a disaster for consumers. It creates a perverse incentive for producers to reduce supply.
Generally agree although there is something a bit sinister about a market where you don't really know the price until after you've bought the product. IMO giving a utility provider blank check is like raw-dogging cheap hookers every night and then being surprised when your luck runs out.
If people WANT this kind of contract I hope that their consent is an informed one. I'm not one to stop people from engaging in their own reckless behavior.
The Texas spike was not what customers were willing to bear, the Texas spike was set to the max price by the regulator because they thought the pricing system wasn't working.
> Texas spike was set to the max price by the regulator...
IIRC, a member of ERCOT who resigned claimed high-ranked state politician(s) pressured the regulator to do set the max price - so it wasn't the independent judgment of the regulator that the system was working; or that this was the solution.
When you have an outage, it's possible the instantaneous cost of electricity is in fact 10x/100x/infinitely more than baseline cost. Looking at it as 100x more employees is the wrong direction. If you're producing 1/100th the electricity for 5 minutes due to power outtages but you still have to pay all your employees during that time, your instantaneous cost (per unit energy) actually are proportionally higher.
Total Texas energy production during the worst part of the crisis last winter was like 60% of maximum though. Most generators were running. If consumer had to pay a 2x premium then no one would have even complained; we'd have all said the system was working.
But that's not how it works, because as I mentioned the demand curve is non-linear. When you have 60% power, yet 60.1% of your capacity needs to go to "must keep the lights on" customers, then prices go to infinity (or in practice to the credit/spending limits of those customers making bids).
You don't 'need the lights on.' I have lived in multiple third world countries where outages happen regularly if you have electricity at all. This is a failure of customers to adequately prepare and instead playing the victim because of their failures. People knew for years Texas grid was vulnerable, and it's an exquisite display of Darwin Award for those who didn't prepare for it.
Only a moron doesn't keep some sort of off-grid combustibles and cold weather gear on hand, even if you live in the most southern edge of our nation. The customer is to blame for paying, not capitalism.
Hospitals do. Street lights do. Network operators do. Just think back to the beginning of the pandemic and how many industries were suddenly discovered to be "essential". You're thinking from the perspective of "can I, personally, suffer a power outage in my own home[1]" and imaginging that "running a civilization" works like that. There are many entities who simply can't stop buying power.
> Only a moron [...]
Please think harder here. It's not remotely as simple as you think it is.
[1] Knowing that you can use your phone to reach effective emergency services in the event of need, of course.
Hospitals are 60.1% of capacity? Hospitals have generators, also. Lets not make hypocritical statements about think harder.
>imaginging that "running a civilization" works like tha
And yet many rich civilizations do run just fine 'like that' and many may consider those civilizations just as good as yours. Your statement is simply ethnocentric arrogant elitism.
>Just think back to the beginning of the pandemic and how many industries were suddenly discovered to be "essential".
You're describing tyrants trying to shut down business. Being 'essential' was simply a chosen word of propaganda as part of a tyrannical process to destroy some people's line of work while favoring others. We are discussing free-market pricing and their interconnection with power disruptions and acts of god.
I generally agree with the “get over yourself” comment but would like to offer a different perspective. The ending suggestion here and in many other comments is “work on yourself more” which I disagree with as the primary path to take. Instead, work on others more.
Try to make the world around you a better place. Maybe you want to tutor below grade-level kids, tutor high performing kids, help with the homeless challenge in your community, volunteer with the humane society, volunteer with hospice, do some environmental projects, help out with a niche historical society, volunteer at the zoo, etc. The point being, do something (in meat space) for your community that you connect with, and you will come into contact with like-minded people who may or may not be “cool”, but they at least want to help out the world around them too. There’s that old saying “it is better to give than to receive.” If you aren’t already, give that a try. :)
My grandfather was an avid volunteer, far more busy in retirement than most working people. My dad once lamented in a family gathering that he (my dad) didn’t want to retire for fear of becoming bored. My grandfather just said in his special way that is hard to convey, “there’s a lot of good organizations that could use some help.”
I’m not an expert, but my light reading of the paper makes it seem like it isn’t “random noise” in the colloquial sense, but more like “there are properties to the randomness even though the images look like noise.”
The abstract seems to say that, but again, I could be misinterpreting: “Our findings show that it is important for the noise to capture certain structural properties of real data but that good performance can be achieved even with processes that are far from realistic.”
That is correct -- by "noise", we don't meet pixel noise, but instead a stochastic process (in fact, different processes different properties which we compare in the paper) from which we can sample large amounts of varied training images.
Except your not actually training on noise, your training on procedurally generated images which include random modifications. It’s just the summery is really bad at describing the process.
Agreed on the nice effort comment. The ones showing the scene from a distance took me some extra time to figure out what was "off". For me it is the whitecaps on the water (if present). Some of the pictures appear to show waves going in the opposite direction of their surroundings. One of those things that when you see it, you can't really unsee it.
I don’t follow the research here but I was pretty sure it was a joke at first because after the initial quote (preceded by the statement “ Consider the statements below. What do they describe? A trip on psychedelics? A dream?”):
> I felt I could reach through the screen to get to another place.
Lasers became entire fans of light sweeping around, and then it felt as if the screen began to expand.
I saw old stone buildings … like a castle … I was flying above it.
I was presented with 3 options, a Dodge Ram, a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and some other truck. I was trying really hard to figure out what the statement had to do with vehicles until I scrolled down (on mobile) more to realize it was a poorly placed advertisement. Not sure why the internet thinks I want to buy a truck, but I imagine there could have been even more hilarious things that could have fit the context better.
I’m not outright disagreeing, but it seems your last statement contradicts the rest of the payday example. “If instead we start to examine causality we can start to figure out the root of the issue and how to address.”
The causality piece is exactly the issue, right? People who use payday loans have less savings, more likely to work in jobs where their hours are unstable, have other poor financial indicators (past use of a payday loan, for example). Black people may disproportionately fall into this category, but I would argue it is wrong to effectively punish all black people (or conversely give other ethnicities an easier time) simply because of their race.
Biases exist, no argument there. The dilemma is what we do with them.
Related to your point, George C Scott apparently didn’t want to film the opening scene of “Patton” because he thought the movie wouldn’t live up to the scene. It really gets at the heart of what the whole movie is about and I can’t imagine it without that opening. Apparently they filmed it at the end of filming.
Besides that immediately making me question their security, it is a great example how people trust things without much thought. I’ve heard of calls for statistics to be pushed over calculus to improve math literacy in the general population, perhaps some cybersecurity courses should be pushed over “learn to code” to improve tech literacy.