I could be wrong, but I think they’re wealthy enough for money not to be important in that sense. If they accept you, they want to minimize barriers for you to attend.
That doesn’t mean that most of the people who get in have been trained for years for that and have loads of money. In other words, the problem is social inequality.
You care about love. You wrote this post. You mentioned someone who loved you as “wholesome”. You say you want to stop avoiding intimacy.
I’d dare to say you care about love, belonging, kindness, safety, and independence. I may be wrong with some or all of those, and I’m sorry if I misread you or made assumptions. However, feel free to write your own list of things that you care about. We humans care where we hurt and we hurt where we care. Think about your experience with love, intimacy, and relationships. Notice when something that hurts pops up. What would you not have to care about for this not to hurt?
It’s also important to notice that brain is trying to protect you. It’s trying to avoid the pain it has perceived in the past, the pain it (rightly or wrongly) predicts will appear in your future. It’s important to recognize its suggestions, its predictions, its interpretations. In case you don’t already do mindfulness practices in any way, you may consider taking it up. It’s important to be careful with what kind of mindfulness you do, because unfortunately there’s a lot of bad mindfulness out there, misinformation, incorrect takes, etc. Mindfulness as presented in programs like Healthy Minds are science-based and really helpful.
Once again, the reason I’m recommending mindfulness is because when you notice your brain’s advice, it’s easier to choose what kind of person you want to be. Once you know where you’re standing, it’s easier to take steps to where you want to go.
Just to comment on relationships. You mentioned that in a relationship it’s possible or likely that there’s “a whole-ass human depending on you or giving herself to you in every way”. Yes, some people think this is how relationships work, but it’s not the only way. You could read Sue Johnson’s Hold Me Tight to see how relationships can be different. The book might also be helpful to you because it explains how humans try to protect themselves even though they want to be close to each other.
Yes, love can be intoxicating “like a drug”. Seeing love through the lens of drugs suggests that we lose control with love. However, if you’re mindful about how it feels, you can both feel its beautiful sensations and also soberly choose what kind of person you want to be. Mindfulness, connection, and personal fulfillment can all coincide with a romantic relationship. Of course, it’s possible to be mindful, connected, and fulfilled without a romantic relationship, but it seems like you think the path towards a healthy romantic relationship is something you predict could make your life meaningful. You’re not alone; plenty of humans seek love in that way.
Others have suggested getting professional help. If so, you could consider looking for an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy therapist or a Coherence Therapy therapist.
To readers of this text who have seen my responses to other people, you may think that I see every situation as a nail that I hammer with my EFT, mindfulness, and ACT hammers. On the one hand, I ask whether you truly believe these situations would not benefit from those approaches. After all, they are evidence-based, trans-diagnostic, and have helped millions of people. On the other hand, it’s not necessary to follow the resources that I suggest; it’s possible to gain connection, awareness, and psychological flexibility in many ways. It’s a matter of finding what works for you.
I hope this helps.
I see how they didn’t answer the question. However, maybe they’re not answering your question but commenting on “Brave is a great product”.
This. My partner’s office is stuck with “it has to be inkjet and not toner", and on January their printer got clogged…
Huh. That’s interesting. Are the MacOS coreutils incapable or not user-friendly in some way? Or is it more that they’re too different for people who know GNU and BSD coreutils?
I also wonder if their coreutils are open source. I quickly tried searching here but couldn’t find an answer https://opensource.apple.com/releases/
Thanks for the response. I’m ignorant in this topic. How is MacOS horrific?
Sure. Please note that I am quite ignorant and unskilled when it comes to Linux. I will seem like someone who’s got shoes on but doesn’t know how to tie them. I’m sorry. I wish I was more skilled and knowledgeable.
ProtonVPN installed via YAST worked on OpenSuse Tumbleweed but didn’t work in OpenSuse Leap.
RStudio in NixOS was hard to update. For example, during the switch to Quarto instead of only Knittr, there was a period where I spent months without updates. I was using an old, old version.
With NixOS, Fedora, or OpenSuse, installing Signal from a program packaged by Signal itself was not possible. There was a Flatpack version run by a contributor, but nothing by an organization.
I totally recognize that I could learn more and become a better user. It’s just a bit frustrating that these weren’t problems for me over at the land of Surveillance Capitalism OSes. I hope these problems are solved with time.
I’ve had loads of problems installing software and making it work.
I bet soon you’ll see massive consequential protests.
It sounds like you really value skill, precision, and usefulness.
Fair enough. Now that I think about it, maybe the developer experience in Apple products are not universally lauded.
For example, I remembered Pirate Software saying that he didn’t develop for Mac because it was a pain, including having to pay Apple $100 yearly to distribute code without issues. Additionally, I remember my brother meeting a Spotify developer, and the Spotify developer said that Apple makes great hardware but lackluster software.
At the same time, it seems like Swift is not a hated language. The 2023 and 2024 Stack Overflow developer survey reports that, even though few people use Swift (~5% of developers), there’s ~60% of admiration for the language.
Oh. I see I was wrong. Amazing. I should look into that! How did you enable it? I did a quick search and found I just need to do gsettings set org.gnome.mutter experimental-features "['scale-monitor-framebuffer']"; is that it?
I’m sorry for having said something untrue. For example, DannyBoy points out that GNOME and whatever Ubuntu uses do have fractional scaling.
However, is my experience untrue? Was I lying when I said that my track-pad two-finger scrolling is frustrating? Furthermore, it’s not unusual for people at work to try my track-pad and it being way too sensitive or too un-sensitive, but no in between.
Was I lying when I said that, for me, it’s hard to get software? Was I lying when I said that maybe this is a skill issue on my part, but even that is indicative of a lack of easy ways of getting reassurance in the way that Apple makes it easy to find software in their App Store?
Was I lying when I said that, to me, GNOME is gorgeous?
Was the creator of the Mojo language lying when he recounted his experience developing Swift?
Was I lying when I said that developers are leaving Linux?
I agree that GNOME and KDE are gorgeous and very polished in many ways. However, I have had some problems in GNOME, Fedora, or Open Suse:
Despite these problems, I do have to say that GNOME is absolutely gorgeous. It’s precisely the kind of user-centricity that I want to see in Linux.
However, the end-users aren’t the only users. There are also developers! For example, I remember listening to the developer of the Mojo language talking with Richard Feldman, and the developer said that the development of the Swift language made it clear to him that Apple is aggressively user-centric. I don’t doubt that there are many problems with Swift as with Apple products in general, but I don’t see that kind of discourse in Linux coming from the main maintainers. Instead, there seems to be a vanguard arguing for a better developer experience (such as writing kernel code in Rust), and they find loads of friction. Heck, key developers are leaving Linux!
Edit: Clarified what is strictly my interpretation.
Today, it is practically impossible to survive being a significant Linux maintainer or cross-subsystem contributor if you’re not employed to do it by a corporation. An interviewer to the Linux dev that’s mentioned in the article: “So what did you do next to try to convince the Linux kernel devs of the need for more focus on end-users?”
I appears as if Linux is a nest that is not built with a consistent set of user-centric principles. Instead, it seems that each part of the nest is built with a specific corporation or project in mind.
Assuming I’m right that Linux is built with project-based thinking and not product-based thinking, I do wonder what a user-centric Linux or another user-centric FLOSS OS would be like, an OS that is so smoothly built that users come to think of it not as an OS for tech-savvy people, but an obvious alternative that you install immediately after getting a computer.
If Linux is indeed built with project-based thinking, then I wonder why that is. The uncharitable explanation is that someone doesn’t want Linux to have a MacOS-like smooth and gorgeous experience. If you don’t think MacOS is smooth and gorgeous, I’ll address that.
I know some people have suffered immensely with Apple products not only because Apple builds devices that can’t be repaired, but because of things simply not working. However, there are many people who love Apple. That’s the kind of passionate advocacy that I would love to see in Linux, and not just around freedom and value-based judgements. I want Linux to be thought of as the least-friction tool for professional or recreational use. I want people to think of Linux as gorgeous and usable.
Of course, we can apply Hanlon’s razor to this situation (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by [ignorance or lack of skill or practice].”). Managing a product is difficult. Managing a community is difficult. When the nest’s design is not built by a team constantly seeking to care about users, but instead by a bunch of users pecking into the nest until their corner is shaped the way they want, it’s not surprising to see a lack of user-centricity.
I assume you are American and are referring to the American government.
What I will say will be unpopular. I understand if you think I’m naive. I understand if you get frustrated. I suspect the frustration comes from having clear images of how fascism has been born out of suffrage and supposedly democratic institutions. I suspect the frustration comes from assuming that my suggestion is to ‘vote your way out of this situation’. I probably seem like a naive liberal, hugging trees and holding hands with Trump-supporters while watching the sunset. I can’t change your beliefs, but I can at least ask whether you’re really sure I’m that.
Here’s what I believe: the future is democratic.
How can I possibly say that when Trump is in power, destroying democratic institutions, covering with his hand the mouths of Americans?
It is evident that Trump is an authoritarian populist. <details> <summary> Here’s what I mean by that. </summary> Authoritarian because he disregards democratic processes. His supporters don’t care that he may shackle them and put his hand on their mouths to never speak again. They are fine with that, as long as he builds The Swamp of America, a land where people are obsessed with their own bellybuttons, where everyone works like robots that never question the dogma shoved into their throats, and where corporations can bulldoze and burn the planet and still receive a pat in the back from The Orange Swamp Man because ape see number go up.
And populist because he systematically disregards and discredits people who know what they’re talking about (experts), and instead do things out of fear that their fragile ego will be hurt. It’s ironic: populists claim to represent their citizens but they don’t listen to the citizens who actually know what they’re talking about. If the truth is inconvenient for the populists’ ego, it’s a good idea to cover the sun with their thumb. Nobody will notice how ridiculous it looks, right? </details>
It is evident that America is currently experiencing a democratic backlash.
The story of this democratic backlash started a while ago. Over the past decades and even centuries, Americans have slowly come to not only value freedom but also be able to transform their political institutions to be more democratic. Women owning property. Black people gaining the right to drink from the same water-fountain as white people, the right to vote, the right to own property… An educational system that’s incredibly flawed and ridiculously overpriced for what it actually delivers, but one that’s envied by many nations on Earth that do not score nearly as high in tests of basic science, math, and reading comprehension. Americans were able to not only look at the goal, but also take steps towards it. These changes aimed to make every American more capable and therefore more free.
However, democratic institutions mean elites lose their capacity to extract privileges from their underlings. To elites, there is such a thing as too much freedom for people, too much freedom to choose who to be and what to do with their lives. Elites noticed people were questioning why elites extracted so many privileges and didn’t contribute to people or invest in people. People were questioning why they have to slave away their lives paying college debt, medical debt, and mortgages while the ultra-rich are buying their third yacht or jet. The people who most extracted wealth from American people did not want to pay back or invest in its people.
American elites saw this as a great opportunity to finance swindlers. The current swindler, The Orange Swamp Man, sold Americans a beautiful knife. The knife itself wasn’t the problem; it was quite capable in destroying capabilities and freedoms. The problem was that the instructions were hard to follow. Americans have found it difficult to hold the smile on their face while stabbing themselves and twisting. The Orange Swamp Man says Americans will have to suffer through tariffs, but that it’s definitely not going to make them suffer more in the long term. The Orange Swamp Man correctly believes that destroying democratic institutions such as healthcare, education, and the basic guarantee of rights is necessary for American elites to extract as much money and power from American people.
It’s important to note that not everyone bought the knife and stabbed themselves. Trump won by a slim margin and Trump is highly unpopular. Those of you who are still alive and well can do something about it. In fact, I’m willing to bet you will, because undemocratic governments do not survive massive organic protests.
How so? Imagine this scenario: Give a man a book and he may never pick it up. Teach a man to read and he’ll silently look around, noticing a lack of development and freedom. Teach men, women, children—everyone to read and you’ll have a bustling conversation: “Really? Is that fair?” “Why does the richest man on Earth not want to invest in the roads that his products use? Why does he not want to invest in the people that made him rich?” “My wife and I had bad accidents and we can’t work. Is our society so selfish that it doesn’t care about us?” This may seem cartoonish, but this is how people realize there’s a mismatch between (1) the elite’s way of extracting and hoarding privileges and (2) how everyday people see the situation.
Each critical thought, each enlightening conversation makes the pressure grow, like a balloon getting pregnant with air, ready to burst at any moment.
All of this language may seem allegorical, metaphorical, out of touch, and absurd. But it is based on decades of research on how democracies are formed and sustained. Check out this article and its cited literature if you’re interested: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/why-the-future-is-democratic/ Also, my story about how American elites relate to their people is essentialized, compressed, and probably missing details that authors like Acemoglu, Robinson, Welzel, Piketty, Shaikh, and Mazzucato can fill in.
As to what you can do, I’d recommend learning how to frame discussions. Not that I’m good at it, but people who know how to use can change how the world works. Social movements die or thrive depending on whether people can internalize what you’re saying.
What do you think? Are you willing to keep on stepping forward in tried and true paths? https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12501 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337861541_Moral_reframing_A_technique_for_effective_and_persuasive_communication_across_political_divides (sorry for the paywal; you can usually email academics and they’ll send you the text, or you can find alternative texts or sources).
I read that, originally, Caps Lock was supposed to be the mode-changing key. For some historical reason that changed to Escape.
Adding to what others in thread have said, there are languages that are more usable and are more user-centric.
SFW edit: There are automatic transmission cars and manual transmission cars, both made for humans, one easier than the other. There are calculators that can compute lots of values and mental math classes, both for humans, one easier than the other. Ergonomics matter.
Although I do concede that, depending on the context, knowing more about something is better than not. I wonder what happened to the original meme’s author for them to create the meme.
It sounds like the fact that people understand recipes or simple instruction lists means that they could transfer those same skills into programming. Would you consider cooking pancakes as abstract as writing a macro?
Europe isn’t a brand, it’s a life/style.