How does this work with multiple PC's? Does it just merge all files into the same Documents folder? What if apps are saving app data to these folders, and you have the same app on multiple computers?
All your multiple PCs have the same Documents folder. Files created on one PC are synced to the cloud and appear in all the other PCs' Documents folders, and will be downloaded to the local storage if you try to access them. You get a small icon next to each file or folder to try and tell you if the files are local or in the cloud or whatever status. If apps are saving data to synced folders (eg. all those many many games happily polluting my Documents folder), then that same data is available to the same app on different computers. Could be good, or bad if the apps are being used on different computers at the same time with no real way of determining which PCs changes win for which particular file.
> All your multiple PCs have the same Documents folder. Files created on one PC are synced to the cloud and appear in all the other PCs' Documents folders
That sounds horrible.
> Could be good, or bad
It sounds bad either way. If the app exists on both computers there's good chance of conflicting overwrites of whatever is saved there. If the app is not used on a device then it's just a waste of downloading and syncing useless data.
They should just make the computers and have subfolders in a shared documents folder AND prompt you about so this before starting so you can turn off this or that folder before anything gets uploaded or downloaded. It's user-hostile design currently
It doesn't matter what I think, and you don't have to understand. Just don't turn it on by default, and if you do, make it safe and easy to turn it off.
Tooling and workflows that make sense on a centrally-administered domain do not belong on my home computer.
I think it just strongly translates into a significant ability to "win friends and influence people" and so on, relative to the alternative or in other words mastery over social interactions and empowerment for an individual to do with it whatever they choose to, while introversion is limiting in this or that way even just making one be viewed socially "less than" in relation to peers.
I see it as almost no different than "why would someone want to be more physically attractive". And, not exactly the same as but close to "charisma" which having more of makes someone more admired, liked, attractive etc.
Having said all that, regardless of other people's perception of you, It seems like being naturally extroverted makes social interactions come easier, effortless, while being introverted and still having to interact socially requires much more effort and is less enjoyable. So having fun and being at ease doing something is better than not.
This is the main problem with talk of being able to "change your personality". It is almost self evident this isn't possible to any significant degree because the thing about extroverts doing something that introverts want to be able to do is, for extroverts or those with social charisma, it comes naturally. They don't have to work hard at it. They are not thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do it without thought. Their mental process around these things is much more efficient in other words. It is akin to someone who knows a language well vs someone with limited mastery of a foreign language, having to constantly exert mental effort to translate thoughts words by word in their head. Some people are also naturally funny; someone who is not can not really change their personality to become this, they would be working hard at something that the other one does not really have to "try" to do.
> [extroversion] comes naturally. They don't have to work hard at it. They are not thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do it without thought
I'm not sure I would frame it as a fixed trait (genetic).
I completely agree one shouldn't neurotically overthink everything. Faking a response using rationality is unhealthy; also people don't respond well to fakeness nor the apparent manipulation.
I believe we can change ourselves somewhat, but I always try to think along the lines of internal encouragement (or even operant conditioning).
I guess my underlying belief is that we are both rational and irrational, and that our rational side can influence our irrational side by self-teaching.
Then again I hate this modern belief that we can do anything if we just believe in ourselves enough. Of course the outcome is that we blame ourselves if we don't make it, or blaming our society (which isn't any more helpful).
Life-goals are a modern weirdness, and there's a lot of adjacent woowoo like manifestation.
> I just would get annoyed when I thought of doing anything other than exactly what I wanted to do at any given time.
Can relate strongly to this, especially when it involves other people's whims or need for you to be involved in some such that you just don't care about nor want to be bothered with.
Or even, which subset of humans' uses cases you wish to concern yourself with as you can't always please everyone or tackle everyone's problems. If one only cared about a single language everything becomes much easier.
There's no way to reel it back. You said it here though:
> Some people have the discipline to push back, but many do not
This is simply a genetic selective filter that will destroy some people while others make it through, and there will need to be an overall adaptation against finding fake slop debilitatingly addictive. Like drugs, alcohol, porn, food, opiates, etc and other things some can resist and are able to abstain while some can't. I used to worry so much about these things in aggregate but I realized it's too pervasive to eliminate and impossible to change people's nature when it comes to resisting it or even worrying about it as a problem to avoid, so simply resisting better than others and having children that hopefully are able to overcome and avoid by way of finding more value in real experiences is the only successful outcome.
If one has to really really think hard about and try really really hard to overcome, then they're probably just not going to make it... and we all know for many people avoiding addictions comes easy. This chasm of reaction to stimulus means there will be divergent outcomes. It can't be any other way.
This is provably wrong. Preventative public health measures against for instance cigarettes and nicotine reduce uptake, reduce consumption and increase quitting. [1] In the case of smoking, this also cut second-hand harm/death from smoking. Similarly, preventative measures have first order and second order benefits for alcohol and other drug consumption.
Just giving up on those who show higher likelihood for addiction is a travesty. Failure to eliminate an addiction is no reason to give up reducing its harms, both to the person themselves, family and friends, and wider society.
It appears that the current content systems have some correlation in lowering the fertility rate; in that case they will be self-limiting after all, just not in the way OP mentioned about the other vices. It will be interesting indeed how things look after a generation or two.
This seems ridiculously fatalistic and weirdly binary way of looking at things. Best I can start with is 'why?', because to a simple person like me it could be any number of ways..
I'm starting to realise that many of Framework's strongest soldiers have probably never touched a laptop other than a MacBook or similar in decades. The ability to upgrade the motherboard is niche yet genuinely cool, but instead I keep seeing breathless announcements of RAM and SSD upgrades as if no-one has ever heard of those before.
Direct counterpoint: I've been a Dell XPS 13 stan for years (owned 3), and my other laptop today is a System 76. I've run IT for labs at a major university (Georgia Tech), across Windows, RHEL, and MacOS. I've been a desktop Linux user since 2006, both personally and professionally.
Across those, I've repaired plenty of laptops. I mentioned the RAM above because it's recent, and because it's easy. And I don't just mean physically easy - I mean I can find the part with a quick search, and it's just like any other ecommerce thing. That's a big shift from figuring out how to upgrade most laptops, where your top search result is a forum post or pushing you to talk to a tech.
Maybe just try having confidence in yourself. Trust your instincts. I'm not going to impugn my own abilities based on some purported flaw in an abstract amorphous blog called "humanity", whatever that is. A lot of individuals of distinction have many characteristics better than the average, why wouldn't I trust myself more than other people?
Pattern recognition is a many millions of years evolved ability best exemplified in the "human" species by the way, so I basically disagree with your whole premise anyways.
The Brown killer was basically caught by a homeless man getting a bad vehicle about the future shooter. So I agree, trusting your gut is definitely a thing.
People believe in witchcraft and lots of other things - including many horrible prejudices - just as confidently as you. There's a reason any scholarship, courts, medicine, and any other serious endeavors require objective evidence.
Imagine that - doctors, who have seen everything, have years of study, treat all those people, still require objective evidence. Anyone in IT looks for objective evidence - timing, stepping through code, etc.
Confidence doesn't correlate well with accuracy; in fact the more someone expresses your kind of confidence, the less I rely on them at all.
What if you wrongfully accuse someone? Does that matter? Are you responsible for the consequences of what you do?
You turn your brain off and outsource your thinking to other people, because you're incapable of perceiving reality for yourself, is what you're telling me.
Of course everyone is responsible for their accuracy and their errors, doesn't mean it's impossible to infer things based on observation experience and intuition. This is an evolved ability, but I do agree some people are better than others like most things.
You're conflating a lot of things. Many prejudices are accurate and prudent, which craft is stupid, but so what? I'm not going to deny my perception on something that's correct just because some other idiot believes in magic; non sequitur.
It's really a bizarre argument. You are making evidence-free claims, based on nothing - including the things you say about me. It discards all of critical thought, empiricism, reasoning, philosophy, etc. ....
Does this include the material conditions of human bio diversity? You deny "way of thinking" is itself a material differentiation but could that not be an expression of material conditions over time reshaping separate groups of people to act and think differently, who were through differing selective pressures, environments, adaptations and historical contingencies themselves "shaped" differently?
Or do you yourself have a religious belief in strict human blank slate equality?
I'm not saying relevance of culture, human bio-diversity, etc. are zeroes in terms of impact. I just get frustrated because they seem to be the only things talked about at the expense of any discussion about actual material conditions or control and distribution of resources
reply