So, why would this extract more semantic meaning than multi-head attention? Isn't the whole point of multiple heads similar to how CNNs use multiple types of filters to extract different semantic relationships?
I’d agree if not for the fact that this is somewhat true in much of Asia: China, India, Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, etc). I’m sure there are exceptions but it’s hard find counter examples
The west used to be much more collectivist. Christianity as it's been practiced for most of history is a collective religion. The rise of individualism corresponds to the rise of atheism and agnosticism and 'nones' in the west.
Are you able to back this up? American individualism has existed for multiple generations, well before the rise of acceptance for atheism/agnosticism/“Nones”.
Americans have always had an individualist streak, fueled by Protestant Christianity, the cultural influence of Appalachia, and cultural diversity. The communitarian parts of Christianity held that somewhat in check. But as even that falls away, america has become hyper-individualized and morality has become almost completely personalized.
There are a number of other factors worth mentioning:
- The philosophy of John Locke, who greatly influenced the founders
- The US is a very new country, compared to those in Europe and Asia. The only preexisting culture was the Native Americans, and you (should) know what happened to them...
- The US is a nation of immigrants who left (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes involuntarily) their previous countries and cultures.
- The US is geographically very large and open. Even within the nation of immigrants, there was a huge amount of migration to populate "the west".
- The US has a very weak central government, by design of the Constitution, and it never had a state church. There's no centralizing cultural force.
The culture of Appalachia—specifically, the Scots-Irish—has been tremendously influential in America: https://reason.com/2005/07/01/the-fighting-scots-irish-2. It is deeply wrapped up in frontier culture, interestingly because Scots-Irish were encouraged to migrate to that land to serve as a buffer against the Indians.
From the very link that you cite: "Webb's book, though well-written and often insightful, is more an exercise in ethnic self-mythologizing than an evenhanded attempt to judge the impact of the Scots-Irish and their culture on America."
The complete paragraph indicates a different tone:
> But the Scots-Irish impact on American politics is more problematic than Webb would have us believe. The populist politics they pioneered doesn't necessarily produce the sort of values that sustain liberty. Indeed, the democratic impulse toward comfort and safety often undercuts self-reliance and individualism. Webb's book, though well-written and often insightful, is more an exercise in ethnic self-mythologizing than an evenhanded attempt to judge the impact of the Scots-Irish and their culture on America.
My reading of the article is that the author agrees with Webb that "the Scots-Irish impact" on America was large. The point of disagreement is whether that influence was as positive as Webb says, or whether it was "more problematic than Webb would have us believe."
Surely, the biggest factor is women’s financial freedom.
Even in the Asian countries lauded for collectivism, I would bet it is women’s civil rights and financial freedom that is changing the situation from collectivist to individualist.
Which makes sense to me since it is probably easier to keep a society collectivist if half the population has little choice.
> The US is a very new country, compared to those in Europe and Asia. The only preexisting culture was the Native Americans, and you (should) know what happened to them...
Forming a new country does not mean abandoning the parent culture. American society is still feeling the influence of the British empire.
> The US is geographically very large and open. Even within the nation of immigrants, there was a huge amount of migration to populate "the west".
This is certainly true, but I'd also venture that a lot of these western pioneers had more solid 'friends' that they could depend than a solid portion of Americans today.
> The US has a very weak central government, by design of the Constitution, and it never had a state church. There's no centralizing cultural force.
This is to America's advantage. In fact, a strong central government is often at odds with community mindedness, which is what we find in most left-wing enclaves (this is my opinion). In his book Democracy in America, de Tocqueville, writes:
"Americans of all ages, all stations of life and all types of disposition are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand types-religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute."
"Finally, if they want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling ...they form an association. In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government ... in the United States you are sure to find an association."
> American individualism has existed for multiple generations
Can you back this up? Because a review of historic American literature would make our modern age of hyper-individualism 'self-help', etc, seem like a completely foreign culture.
Societies tend towards an organizing principle, and liberty has been the organizing principle of the US since its founding no less than the interests of the German race was the organizing principle for the Third Reich and anti-capitalism was the organizing principle of the Soviet Union.
(Democracy was seen by the founders as way to protect liberty more than liberty was seen as a way to protect democracy.)
"Don't tread on me," was a slogan of the American revolution. Ditto, "give me liberty or give me death." For many decades, drug addiction raged in the US while heroin and cocaine remained legal because a Federal law against the free trade in these drugs was seen as an unconstitutional curtailment of the individual's liberty. The starting of a Federal income tax was likewise held up for decades on the same argument.
Again, liberty has been the main organizing principle of the US since its founding, and I'd be a little surprised to learn that there are Americans with IQs above 110 that do not know that, but I guess some people are too busy to learn about history and politics.
My guess is you live in the West. There are other cultures in the world, where there is still a strong sense of informal community. Where you can just walk to a friend or a relative's house unannounced for a cup of tea, without thinking all the time if it would inconvenience them. It feels really amazing to have the option to do that.
I moved to the US (Bay Area) about 10 years ago after having spent much of my youth elsewhere, and to this day, I haven't been able adjust to the lack of informal social interactions compared to where I'm from. I really tried as well to see if it's me who is not able to fit in. However, after a while I realized it's just a cultural difference. It's a way of life that has existed for several decades, which has its own benefits.
To me, US seems like an amazing place when you're in the apprentice/work phase of your life (20 - 45?). However, as I grow older, there are other things I have begun to value more, and one of the top ones is authentic human connection. I hope as US becomes more and more diverse, people from other cultures can add the good things they bring, instead of just trying to fit in to the default cultural model.
You're right, I'm from the West. I spent 5 years in Asia in my 20s, which is where a lot of the wisdom comes from. I've lived with Balinese families, and I've spent a lot of time in rural areas in Cambodia, Thailand, and India. I know exactly what you mean when you say informal communities. It was one of the things I spoke about the most to the people around me when I got back.
I could literally turn up at my friends house uninvited and make myself breakfast in the morning or grab some things I need for a long trip. I'd regularly get invited to all kinds of events, weddings, gatherings, and it all culminates in such a flowing state that you really get to enjoy being you as a person. I miss it.
I never had to look for anyone, because from the moment I entered a village to rent a house/apartment, I became part of that community.
> I could literally turn up at my friends house uninvited and make myself breakfast in the morning or grab some things I need for a long trip.
I think this depends on ages of friends. I am Pakistani who grew up in Saudi Arabia. This was certainly true, I could go to most of my friends homes unannounced. They would be glad that I came and vice versa. Moms will cook fresh meals no matter what time it was.
But it was same in the US, at least, until my late twenties. I could visit my friends unannounced, crash at their place, and vice versa. And it wasn't only immigrant friends. Our group of friends was pretty diverse with all different cultures and backgrounds. Plenty of Americans and Europeans.
It stopped only when we started to get married or got into super serious relationships.
> I'd regularly get invited to all kinds of events, weddings, gatherings
And this can be very tiring. I am really glad that this practice is not common here in the US.
Many times people invite large group of people because it is matter of prestige, not really that they care about their guests. This especially true for weddings and other formal events. Good for wedding industry though.
It isn't a culture thing in my experience and it has nothing to do with religion as another user suggested. You can see the same in China where many people are not religious. Or Cuba, people are extremely social there. In the latter case it's by lack of choice. When you have no proper internet access, no money, nothing to watch on TV and nowhere to go for entertainment apart from the town square and your friend's places, it's a no-brainer. So I guess that would be one way to create that experience.
As for China I already see it changing with increasing development. Families are't as big anymore, younger folks all move to the cities for work. The old ones stay behind and are increasingly lonelier. Kids are lonelier too than they used to be. They become less social which increases loneliness of course. It's a vicious cycle.
My idea without having done too much research into it would be encouraging and incentivizing people to return to the villages. It's possible for anyone who can work remotely and those jobs are increasing so it's increasingly viable. Maybe without understanding it, I think many of the lonely people are uprooted. They have nowhere they belong. They just exist but they aren't part of any community.
Btw, this loneliness is also dangerous in another sense because those are the exact targets terror groups and other extremists look for to radicalize online. It's hard to do that with someone with a happy life and good friends they see on a daily basis.
I'm going to be quite honest, but I do believe what holds together the countries I mentioned is their faith, which is Hinduism and Buddhism respectively. And both of these faiths are not widely accepted in the West, but not for reasons most people think. It's a way of life, and requires immense structure to have the support of the citizens who actually live in the said country. And for most of Southeast Asia, it works. It is as clear as the sky above can be.
But as someone already mentioned, what is happening here in the West is definitely making its way in the East towards the new generation. It's phones, it's flashy clothing, materialism. I definitely saw a lot of that too, and many parents I spoke to (which was quite a few over the years) - everyone said the same thing, they're frustrated that the children are going in a direction that bears no fruit for the mind.
I’m not sure if it’s the specific faith that matters. Much of the sense of community being discussed was provided in the West by Christian churches until recently.
Just requires a shared belief and value system of some sort compatible with building communities.
I think this atomization, as well as a lot of other things that are distinctive about the West, came about at least partly through Christianity. For example, consider the "unprecedented inner loneliness" that Weber found in Calvinism.
I had the same exact experience while travelling through Southeast Asia for several months a few years ago.
I came to the same conclusions you did, and I'm glad you were able to condense it in such a way.
It frustrated me though, to see that their youth were losing their old ways though. Of course it came with some benefits, but I saw them everywhere staring at their phone screens and could only feel nostalgic.
I had a similar experience growing up in East Germany, and there it definitely wasn't "faith".
Part of it at least - not sure if I'm qualified to fully analyze it (I'm not) - is how equal we really were. Yes that includes the "rulers". If you look at the house the head of the GDR lived in for decades in the closed-off area for the ruling elites, called Wandlitz, it was nothing special at all. The first journalist who when the wall fell got to report from Wandlitz, a regular GDR citizen, was unimpressed and "not jealous", in his own words. Any craftsman could do better, even in the GDR (I know because my grandfather was one and our house looked better than that of Honecker).
(Yes I know they shot people at the border. That has nothing to do with my point though. - The last time I pointed out that GDR elite at least did not behave like e.g. Ceaușescu in Romania or Putin now and did not try to get rich but actually believed in their mission, somebody complained, but that they used deadly force of arms and surveillance to achieve it does not negate that.)
When the wall came down I was in the middle of the three-year education after the initial mandatory ten years, preparation to study, and we found a partner class of equal level in Bavaria and visited one another even before official reunification. We saw a completely different culture there. Some kids drove a BMW they got for birthday, others had little, there was very little cohesion in their class while ours was a wonderful group. Mind you - my class had an extreme variety of people from all over the GDR because we learned a very popular profession. We had a classmate whose parents were diplomats who lived in Western Europe and all over the world and could travel freely, we had children of workers, and of people high or low in some hierarchy, a grand mix. It did not matter! We were all as one and material differences just did not matter at all, they were tiny to begin with, compared to the vast differences (from our PoV) even among the middle class in the West.
For us too visiting others without any preparations was daily normality. Of course, in the GDR we didn't even have phones at home for many people. My own mother had the chance to get a phone because she was important enough in her job, but she didn't want one to avoid getting called at home... so yeah, you just showed up at someone's home and it was normal.
We also didn't have significant existential pressures. Sure, what education and job exactly you wanted took some effort, but it wasn't even remotely as big a deal to get and to keep one, and to find a home, as it is now.
Yes quality and diversity of stuff you can buy and do is many levels above what we could do now, we wanted the wall gone and reunification for a reason. Also, our environment was in a terrible state, West German did a gigantic and remarkable job cleaning it all up. So, when I say what I did above, I certainly don't vote for reinstating that system, but maybe there is something to learn. It's much more stressful now, and it's hard to say why that is and why we couldn't have at least a look at that part of living in the East.
I also remember quite a few community projects. Lots of people simply got together and did stuff. For example, building a wonderful, amazing and today impossible (too unsafe!) playground, two small valleys with a hundred meters each of various wooden forts and many installations like wooden trains. Or they build several hundred garages together, my father went there too. Or, my grandfather simply spontaneously built a stone wall to support some sandstone wall - on a public stretch of the mountain road. No money was ever involved, nobody got paid. Companies/factories in the area donated machines and materials (I mean, they were people-owned and not private anyway) - serving the people was part of their mission to begin with. All the big companies had to produce some consumer goods too in addition to their normal portfolio, because the GDR was severely lacking those. So, much was born of necessity, but it still had some good parts, the cooperation for example.
It also was much easier to make friends when you went somewhere. I know my parents - certainly not especially gifted in how-to-connect but quite ordinary - easily made friends and even met them later and invited them to visit us at home, and they did, in various vacations. Not just in the GDR, even in Hungary, another East Bloc country, where we went on vacation a few times. It wasn't just once, it was quite a regular occurrence, be it neighbors old and new, or people you just met. For the children it was so easy I don't even need to bother to describe it.
> I'm going to be quite honest, but I do believe what holds together the countries I mentioned is their faith, which is Hinduism and Buddhism respectively
Can you elaborate on how Hinduism makes it better?
"A world gained for Technology is lost for Liberty" (Jean-Marie Straub, France Against the Robots).
"Loneliness without God is sheer madness. At least our ravings end in him, and thus we cure our mind and soul. God is a sort of lightning rod. For God is a good conductor of sorrows and disillusions" (Emil Cioran, Tears and Saints).
America in earlier times was much more community oriented while still being capitalist. But maybe that was tempered by having stronger labor organizations, civic clubs, churches, etc.
It's a wealth thing. You can observe the development live in countries with economies catching up to the more developed countries. The richer societies get in monetary terms the lonelier people get socially. And then depression rises fast.
Note that interestingly this does not affect the elites and mega wealthy as much as regular folks whose more traditional and social lifestyles are disrupted by all the development. The standard pattern would be moving from their rural places where everyone knows each other to a bigger city - in search of riches. Work an office job, live in a concrete box, have fewer spare time, don't really know the neighbors. Work more to pay off the mortgage, because those city properties are expensive. Work more to catch up with rising inflation and prices. Work, work, work...
In the end, yes they might be able to afford a car and iphones and a giant TV and holidays abroad. But all at a cost.
No it's more just an American thing. Greater focus on individualism plus nuclear families being the norm as opposed to multigenerational households.
It's made worse by the fact most households cannot afford expenses without both parents working, so children are naturally being left alone more than previous generations.
Children arw definitely not more alone then before. They are way more supervised then before.
It used to be normal for 6 years old or younger to go to school, Shor or play outside unsupervised. And in poor families both parents frequently needed to work while kids were without adult supervision. Middle and upper class women were stay at home, but their kids could roam around without parents. The helicopter parenting as expectation came in only lately.
"Supervised" does not mean "interacting with someone else", it usually means they're locked in a room with an adult. That adult does not have to be engaging them.
> And in poor families both parents frequently needed to work while kids were without adult supervision.
There may be less strictly "poor" families now than there were before, but there are way less families that can afford hiring a nanny or similar.
That holds for past too. If anything, expectations on parent actively playing with kids, actively teaching them or doing enriching activities are higher. The do spend less time with friends , but it is not because parents are less engaged with them.
The concept of play date is new. Parents were not organizing kids social lives. The need to drive somewhere to even have a chance on meeting someone is new. They used to bike to meet friends or do what they want. There and many changes like that. I am not saying everything is bad. Kids commit less crimes, gets into serious trouble less often. They get pregnant less, they drink less, they smoke and take drugs less. They are safer and are involved in less accidents. They finish the school more often.
All that is good. But it is simply not true that parents would actively engage with kids less all in all.
-------
My point here is that kids and teenagers are not lonely because parents don't engage with them. They are lonely because peers don't engage with them. Fairly often they just don't live nearby. Or it is not accepted for kids to go visit them without adult having to tag along. Then they become teenagers and people act shocked they ... continue existing the way they have been raised.
There's this saying, "It takes a village to raise a child." I'd say
> The concept of play date
and
> expectations on parent actively playing with kids, actively teaching them or doing enriching activities are higher
are the result of the erosion of such 'villages'. As you imply the way kids hung out in the past was way more ad-hoc and unrestricted by things like travel time. I think ultimately that was because there was a mindset that people didn't have back then, namely one of perfect planning of all outcomes in regards to raising a kid. I think that too is a symptom of not having villages - how do you plan around 20 different near/family members interacting with your kid? You just kind of accepted that "grandma knows best", "auntie knows words", "Jack will be a good influence", etc.
Basically I'd agree that parents might interact more with their kids, with the caveat that it's due to a decrease in engagement overall.
Lol k I'm not going to debate you on this. It wasn't always the case that both parents worked full time outside the house but you can believe whatever you want.
I think we can say that it's not inherent to capitalism, since there are plenty of capitalist countries without the same issues. It seems to be more about the balance that is struck between capitalist efficiency and social wellbeing. The US is heavy on the efficiency and economic output side of the spectrum. That comes with many benefits, but also major drawbacks.
I think it is. It is a tradeoff of capitalism. Capitalism creates competition, and breeds a certain level of mistrust. It demands hyper-individualism. That's the slant of the system, by design. The only solution, as you mentioned, is periodic tempering. And thus the pendulum swings.
The US is a country of immigrants who for the most part came here because they valued the individual over the community. The individualism lives in the deepest roots of our culture. As a child of immigrants who was born and grew up in the US, I feel the same way you do the older I get and have been seriously considering a move abroad because of it.
Further, it feels like the only basis of a shared culture, our basic political ideals, is now up for question. So if it isn't faith, ethnicity, etc, then what is actually binding us together?
> The US is a country of immigrants who for the most part came here because they valued the individual over the community.
Not enirely true, many immigrants came for better or better perceived economic opportunities and many continue to have strong but closed communities. Their children, the second generation immigrants allign themselves closer with US culture and values leaving behind communities for more individual values.
The very act of leaving a community for better economic opportunities abroad is a demonstration of one's relative values, even if there is a hope to eventually reestablish that sense of community at some point.
> The US is a country of immigrants who for the most part came here because they valued the individual over the community
I disagree with that statement, despite agreeing with the following:
> The individualism lives in the deepest roots of our culture.
There's a plethora of reasons people come here: freedom to express themselves, security, financial opportunity because they're literally living in squalor elsewhere, etc. I don't think a majority of people came because they _wanted_ individualism. They wanted to improve their situation and came to a country that had a pretty good marketing spiel.
Also if you look at immigrant communities in the US, they tend to be much closer than ones that have been here for generations (with exceptions). They create the community you claim is rejected when they come to the USA. The most active communities I've witnessed here are the Asian, Hispanic, and African social circles built around the culture that they left behind in their home countries. So I don't think your argument about immigrants leaving = individualism holds.
"There's a plethora of reasons people come here: freedom to express themselves, security, financial opportunity because they're literally living in squalor elsewhere, etc. I don't think a majority of people came because they _wanted_ individualism. They wanted to improve their situation and came to a country that had a pretty good marketing spiel."
All these reasons are examples of valuing the individual over the community.
I disagree, I think you're oversimplifying complex decisions to represent an individual's value system.
I can think the community is more important than the individual, but still leave to protect my children from starvation. Reducing human behavior to any single statement like you have done leaves many factors out, which is why solving these social issues is so insanely difficult.
"I can think the community is more important than the individual, but still leave to protect my children from starvation."
You can think that, but your actions demonstrate otherwise. In that scenario, you valued your children's health over remaining within your community. What is special about those specific children? They are yours towards whom you feel a duty you must fulfill as their parent. And yet, there are others who would choose to stay. I'm not passing judgement on either.
Ostensibly, they're part of the community. I'd argue it's not impossible, but even necessary, for the needs of a community to align with the needs of an individual. Reducing it to a "You benefit the community xor yourself" binary is engaging with black and white thinking.
It's very true that the American myth of the triumphant (and embattled) individual is a predominant socio-cultural model. But some of the major immigrant waves came as communities and continued to be so in their diaspora.
"Where you can just walk to a friend or a relative's house unannounced for a cup of tea, without thinking all the time if it would inconvenience them."
I really miss this. I have lived in the US my whole life but my father and much of my family is from the UK. We would always go over other people's houses unannounced when I was young and they always were excited to see us and never inconvenienced. Compare this to my mother's family (born and raised in the US but by Italian immigrants) and it was another story: you had to call ahead and were typically given a time to be in and out.
Fast forward to today, and people think I'm the weird one when I say, let's just "pop in" instead of calling or texting. Except for my parents and sisters, it is completely unheard of to ust pop in or have someone pop in unannounced. My wife gets loads of laughs and shocked expressions when she tells friends and coworkers that me and my family don't call each other ahead of time to visit.
It's a much different society today, but i think (hope?) the more people realize lonliness can (in some ways) be avoided by just visiting each other, I think this trend will reverse itself.
I really do hope. Sometimes, just short visits help you get a sense of community. And slight inconvenience is ok I feel, it is the cost of building/maintaining a relationship :)
When they said "the future is here, just not evenly distributed" -- it unfortunately applied to social dystopia, just as well as technical advances.
So whatever culture you are from, give it a decade or two and it will likely catch up with the US over this. To see even further into the future, look at Japan.
It's not clear that the US is actually further in the future in this sense than Western/Northern Europe. Demographically speaking, we are behind them and headed in their direction, so it could well be the case that we will follow suit in de-prioritizing economic growth relative to quality of life and social cohesion. If you look at the political leanings of the younger vs. older generations, it seems reasonably likely.
Japan is also a complex case. While there are the well-known issues with loneliness, suicide, overwork, etc., it also beats the US in most quality of life metrics. It has very high social trust, low inequality, very low crime, affordable housing, universal healthcare, and so on.
Even if what you say is true, it's not guaranteed that future societies will forever be in this age of loneliness. Technology has moved fast and there will be growing pains, but I don't see evidence that we are incapable of changing culturally.
These conversations are happening around the world, many people are unhappy living their lives in technological bubbles and many want things to change.
I do, and I think Neil Postman called it out even in 1992. We've surrendered our culture to technology, and it's going to be dammed hard getting it back. Especially once LLM's can be trained to manipulate you at the deepest psychological levels. We're in for a bumpy ride, and I don't see any way of escaping it.
I heard it said once that the future will arrive at the same time for everyone, but the effects will be unevenly distributed. For the simple fact that 1) some countries are more powerful than others and 2) "effects" to one country can be merely "externalities" to another.
Sure, just to be very clear, I'm not boasting about this. And I do certainly hope that the exact opposite happens as we move forward to the next generation. I'm certainly hopeful.
My parents, who still live in the same small US town I grew up in, still live this way. Relatives who still live in the area, and random friends made over decades, will randomly drop by to say hello.
This is especially good for my Dad, who due to health issues has very restricted mobility. I know his mental health would be much worse without this dynamic.
But in the city where I live, that’s not really possible. Friendly with neighbors and enjoy talking to them, but inviting myself for a tea or coffee isn’t really a thing.
I do have friend groups and support, especially through my church. But it’s not the same as what you describe or what my parents still have.
I grew up in Santa Cruz, went to University over the hill in the Bay Area, and financially had to move away well into my child raising years. I haven't been able to adjust to the lack of informal social interactions where I am now compared to back there.
Crazy to think either 1. Things have changed significantly back home or 2. Moving changes our social networks/relationships. My parents informal community in Santa Cruz was non-existent (we moved there in the late 70s). Mine having grown up there were huge
In Santa Cruz I left my garage unlocked so friends could drop off/pick up their surfboards at all hours (the tide cares nothing about the construct of time). Friends literally coming into our house in the early A.M. unannounced while we slept to get/leave their boards.
> I hope as US becomes more and more diverse, people from other cultures can add the good things they bring, instead of just trying to fit in to the default cultural model.
The book "Bowling Alone" [1] make the case that diversity actually increases atomization, rather than increases it. This lines up with casual observation too. As the US has become an increasingly pluralistic country, social capital has diminished remarkably.
I'd consider south america as part of the west. I'm from Brazil and I'd never just pop in a friend's house without being invited over. I suppose if you live in a small town that could happen. But I do think americans do that in small towns too.
Before the smart phone I think it was less odd to pop in if you were in the area, but with phones, I feel like anywhere I lived people would at the very least send a message.
Maybe I misremember but the UK seemed more like this in 80s / 90s. The part about just turning up. Not so much th
extended family / weddings type stuff.
I think the mobile phone (original, not just smart phone) killed it to some extent as you would arrange things on the phone and not pop in.
If you're going back that far, "popping in" was not uncommon in the US either. Yes mobile tech has contributed to reduction in unannounced visits.
With the ability and expectation that you can contact anyone at any time and make or change plans, doing anything unannounced has become unexpected. It used to be much more normal.
Agreed. I grew up in a semi-rural area in the US in the 90s and no one in our community thought twice about just showing up.
This sometimes still happened within the past decade in rural Virginia (my family owned a farm there). Neighbor farmers would stop by once a week or so and just chat, usually still sitting in their truck. Seemed like they were on their way somewhere and saw us outside so they'd pull over to talk.
> I moved to the US (Bay Area) about 10 years ago after having spent much of my youth elsewhere, and to this day, I haven't been able adjust to the lack of informal social interactions compared to where I'm from. I really tried as well to see if it's me who is not able to fit
In the same boat. In HS and college, would have somewhat frequent get togethers and then COVID came and ruined it
Idk if the bay area is just like this or if I'm just going through a phase. It's probably just me
I would think Bay Area might be better than other places given the diversity. I spent a couple of years in North Carolina before moving here, and that experience was not good for me
> I hope as US becomes more and more diverse, people from other cultures can add the good things they bring, instead of just trying to fit in to the default cultural model.
While I agree on the broader point, there is a bias here that I think is worth noting. There is no inherently good or bad cultural practice in this context. It's just a relative difference that of course if you're not used to it, feels uncomfortable. I think it's not hard to see how the flip scenario is also true, people who grow up with more formal and structured social interactions would feel uncomfortable in a culture that has a different social dynamic.
Having lived in both cultures, I echo this. It's about tradeoffs. The beauty of US individualism is that it allows the space to go within, practice self-inquiry. A side effect that could be loneliness.
Extremely well put. I am from one of the countries that was absolutely slaughtered by the so called great britain, and I have as much desire to share my opinion and views, as the folks who are mourning the loss.
Don't feel discouraged. You are not alone. There are, unfortunately, millions of people across the globe whose opinion about this heinous war criminal are being silenced so that the 'feel-good' propaganda can propagate.
Those of us who make the effort to understand the truth of world affairs will always be targeted by those who wish to mould the world to their view. Such is the nature of imperialism.
Elizabeth and her empire is STILL TODAY responsible for much, much suffering - at immense scale. This is a truly scary fact for those who live inside the propaganda bubble that protects them from knowing anything about the victims of the empire.
And if you have something to contribute then contribute it. But if it is just to say "boo queen" then don't be surprised if it receives a poor reception.
Absolutely. For a platform with a relatively high engagement early on, they made so many missteps: awful photo/video tools (instagram, tiktok), messing up live, messing up developer experience, stagnant product (awful thread management for YEARS).
However, I still believe it can be fixed. As an example, my consumption of news related information has moved significantly to Twitter. Why not do a better job there, in trying to provide a kick-ass way for content creators/consumers, and charge them for it.
I hear you. And there is good advise in the comments, but one thing I'd think you should also explore is your emotional response when you hit the harder parts of a problem. Sometimes, it is not the lack of knowledge or understanding of a subject, but the emotional response (subtle anxiety, anger, stress etc) that hinders progress when you hit an uncomfortable stage in problem solving. To add to it, leetcode and interviews have the added pressure of time limitations.
Observe your emotions - there may be a completely different solution to your problems.
This resonates with my recent attempts to find meaning and purpose in things I do. As you point out, it's almost the same things I do, but some seemingly small things seem more meaningful...
1. Not being afraid to look at the code of the libraries that my main project depends on. It's a slow, deliberate process to develop this habit and skill. But more importantly, as you keep doing this, you will develop your own tactics of understanding a library's code and design, in a short amount of time.
2. Not worrying about deadlines all the time. Not a programming technique as such, but in a world of standups and agile, sometimes, you tend to work for the standup status. Avoiding that has been a big win.
3. (Something new I've been trying) Practicing fundamentals. I know the popular opinion is to find a project that you can learn a lot from, but that may not always happen. Good athletes work on their fundamentals all the time - Steph Curry shoots like > 100 3 point shots everyday. I'm trying to use that as an inspiration to find some time every week to work on fundamentals.
4. Writing: essays, notes. In general, I've noticed I gain more clarity and confidence when I spend some time writing about a subject. Over time, I've noticed, I've become more efficient in the process.
There are quite a few, and you can create a list of categories you consider as fundamentals for the nature of your work. As an example, I would think Algorithms and Data Structures is a fundamental subject. These are the easiest to practice.
You could for example pick something as simple as a HashTable, and implement it from scratch. Then, you could add more complexity to it, like HTs that won't fit in memory, expanding and shrinking HTs efficiently etc.
Or, you could use one of the several practice websites like LeetCode to practice Algorithms/DS problems.
Once you start building a habit, you will also become better at organizing your practice routine and finding out more about what to work on, and where to look for study/practice materials. But mind you, this is a slow process, which you want to build as a habit. There is no end goal here (like cracking Google interview or such), this is a process to get better at the fundamental skills in your field.
