I once scalded my mouth on hot cocoa that had been (over) heated in a microwave.
Now, I carefully measure temperatures with a thermometer and have learned that 160F is a perfect pouring temperature, assuming it will be poured into a room temperature ceramic mug where it quickly cools into the 150F range. This temperature is pleasant for sipping and probably about the range where most people enjoy their coffee.
If I see a person with a broken bone protruding from their arm, I don't need an undergrad med-terms class to know "this person needs medical attention" even if I am not qualified to render it.
Similarly, there are certain thresholds of human behavior that indicate mental illness -- you don't have to be licensed to treat it in order to recognize that there is a serious problem.
actually interpreting the DSM-V and running diagnostics is exclusive to clinically trained psychologists and psychiatrists. even LCSWs are remiss to offer a 'diagnosis' after years of talk therapy with a client. most official diagnoses happen within a matrix describing a cluster of symptoms paired with an eval of severity and impact on life, and a battery of tests that have been empirically and rigorously validated
as my wife (who does have an MD and specializes in psychistry) is fond of saying when people ask her to diagnose someone she doesn't know, "Sometimes people are just weird"
it could be that the guy here is just very burnt out and stressed and his healthier coping mechanisms aren't working so he's resorting to worse ones
you can be empathetic to that without calling someone 'mentally ill'
Why are people so eager to gatekeep who gets to call others mentally ill? I don't understand it. I don't have to be a doctor to say that someone who is constantly coughing and having a fever is sick, nor do I have to be a doctor to call someone with no legs disabled. What's different about mental illness?
I don't disagree that there might be more subtle cases that are hard to tell by a lay person. But Matt is not like that. You are free to read his posts from the WP Engine lawsuit, including his post on hacker news, or his prior posts from some tumblr moderation drama. To me, the consistency and degree of his actions crosses the boundary of "bad day at work" and lands firmly in the "crazy guy in the park screaming at squirrels" territory. In fact, I'd argue that if he doesn't have tech wealth and was instead working a more traditional white collar job he might have already ended up just like that.
> Why are people so eager to gatekeep who gets to call others mentally ill?
Because calling someone mentally ill is a serious thing to do, and doing so without being qualified to offer that diagnosis is irresponsible and cruel.
> I don't have to be a doctor to say that someone who is constantly coughing and having a fever is sick, nor do I have to be a doctor to call someone with no legs disabled. What's different about mental illness?
If you can't understand the obvious, huge difference between those things, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Because some people would go insane without having an external authority to appeal to; the extant systems of academia and qualification create an "objective" truth these peoples' psyches can cling to.
because it contributes to stereotypes and increases stigma around mental health. this leads to even more social isolation and self-doubt for people with those disorders which worsens their quality of life, something that is already much lower on average than those without
it's the same idea as not calling people the 'r' word and why that word itself is no longer used in official diagnoses. it's a boundary condition grounded in compassion. advocating for using a new word doesn't need some soapbox tantrum about the fatuousness of the modern world a la Ignatius J. Reilly
That's not what anyone is saying. There are many classes of human (and non-human) condition where it's best to allow a subject-matter expert to diagnose, and where armchair diagnosticians can do a lot of harm. This is one of them.
The idea that you can "diagnose" someone with a mental illness based on reading their court filings and things they've written online, without ever speaking to them in person, is... well, just bonkers. It's irresponsible, at best.
Someone can exhibit anti-social behaviors without having a mental illness.
This is as frustrating as people I know who are constantly saying "I think so-and-so is autistic/has ADHD". Yes, sometimes it's correct, but often it's not, and the outward symptoms of those two conditions often lead to a true diagnosis of something else entirely.
how is that in any way what I am saying? you are not describing the actual condition. you're ascribing what you see as anti-social or negative behaviors you heard about an individual (who has not disclosed any diagnosis) to a complicated illess that requires years of training to formally diagnose
this bloviating about free speech when all anybody is asking you to do is to not be an asshole is so overwrought and childish
becase most people are not qualified to distinguish mental illness from emotions, stress etc, and obviously you are not either. A broken, protruding bone is obviously broken and protruding; you see it with your eyes and you know that it's broken. Mental illness is much tougher to diagnose because you're looking at symptoms, not the actual brokenness. You said it yourself - you are a layperson, not a doctor, which confirms that you are nowhere near qualified to diagnose mental illness. Your "argument" stinks of ad hominem.
Someone "naked on the street, screaming at a wall, eating a pigeon or whatever" could be having a bad trip on some drugs, not necessarily mentally ill. The drugs will wear off, and they will be a regular neurotypical person again. But by slapping a mental illness label onto that person, you've proven that you have no clue what you're talking about, and you shouldn't be diagnosing anyone.
Our brain is designed through evolution to slap labels, aka engage in hasty generalisation. The world is much more complex than that.
Just for the record, I did see him posting on HN, and he seemed highly motivated by $$$ (and pride). He certainly seemed rational, other than the fact he shouldn't have been posting here. Businessman makes bad business decision and doubles-down. Not quite insanity.
Hard disagree. Physical ailments like the one you describe are indeed simple to armchair-diagnose, but psychological problems are not that.
Even for physical issues, there's a lot of grey. A bone protruding from an arm is one thing, but how about, say... a rash? Could be lots of things. An ephemeral pain with little or no visual manifestation? Who knows.
Why do you think that mental illness is necessarily a protruding bone and not a rash or an ephemeral pain?
That may have been true initially but meta has enough information to heuristically observe unidentified users and compare their behaviors with known consumers. It only takes a few actions to uniquely identify a consumer with a high degree of confidence.
Pretty sure Meta doesn't do that on iOS devices because that'll get you banned from the App Store. They just figured out ways to not need individual fingerprinting.
Great post, so neat to see it running in the browser! One question: why not thin the config a little? USB, SOUND, VGA, etc. are all slowing down the boot but don't have hardware to control.
This is a valid point a friend brought up as well. There's no reason all of this is enabled except for keeping the config simple. I only recently learned about `make tinyconfig` though which should let you creating a absolutely minimal config to start off of. I might add that as a note at the end
This complicated project was well executed, and I enjoyed it. I'm sorry your post wasn't more popular, I hope you won't be discouraged from sharing your adventures in the future!
In highschool, students learn to use many tools which are physically dangerous, including automobiles, stovetops, carpentry and metal fabrication tools, chemical laboratory equiment, and may even compete in archery or rifle events. All of these things can be used for good or for harm, and we introduce them when students are a little older.
I still believe people should be able to tie their shoes, open cans and wine bottles, be able to print and write in cursive, be capable of longform coherent, logical and original prose writing, and pass a logic section of at least a couple of modern intelligence tests. Kids brains are pliable til what, 24-25? If they have any chance to be anything other than a mere appendange to a machine, they had better not be lazy before then. I especially believe that anyone, but at least those under the age of 23 or so should not rely on things like AI, agentic intelligence, or any form of group-cohesive input to learn how to express or explain concepts like friendships, family, or love.
> in an overcomplicated way that makes me exhausted after reading
This. I can't even listen to youtube videos any more because of their chat-gpt generated scripts. LLMs will readily generate several pages of superfluous prose, rehashing the same idea with punchy witticisms for no reason. But it uses such compelling connecting words that you might be tricked into believing there will be a payoff long past the point of diminishing returns.
I have been enjoying reading literary classics for their poetic concision. Sometimes, a bit of context can allow a simple sentence to form a picture in your mind's eye that would take a few minutes to explain syllogistically. I wish to communicate more like that.
The only problems Opus struggles with, Fable won't take on. I was porting some software from Win32 to linux. Opus was running in circles. Fable was going great until it saw some authentication code and bailed.
> The arsonists in power are trying to set fire to the house
Academia was on fire a long time ago, as evident in the reproducibility crisis.
A core cause is publishing pressure: Journals give peer reviewers almost no time to approve new works, and a professor who fails to approve what he reviews can jeopardize his own ability to publish, turning the process into a frenzied rubber stamp.
Lack of actual peer review means significant errors and even fraud gets published without question.
I've seen the pressure to publish cause a professor to cover up protocol lapses in rat studies. The professor was made aware that the control group had been mishandled, invalidating the findings, but he published anyway because failure to publish something after receiving grant money could harm his career.
Even in harder sciences like chemistry I've seen papers with glaring errors in the equations.
The current state is that the majority of academic output is not reproducible -- you cannot depend upon it for building toward future results. This is a house that needs to burn until the truth matters again.
Best to learn these things the way babies do -- by listening to the speech of others and copying it, and letting a native correct you. Eventually the correct conjugations will feel natural.
In Spanish, native speakers typically learn (implicitly) or memorize (explicitly) the gendered article along with the noun, so instead of thinking "hmm, let me remember the gender of mapa" they'll just have that noun stored internally as "el mapa". It's still a matter of memorization (at least for words whose gender violates the typically spelling heuristics), but it's not really conceived of as memorizing the word and then separately memorizing its gender. And of course, there will always be rare or specialized terms that a native speaker might recognize but confidently know the gender. This is especially true for the small set of nouns whose gender varies by region or context.
Except in Spanish, gender is pretty easily determined from the word ending 99.9% of the time unless it's a Greek neuter, and there are only a few of those.
In French, it's common for people not to remember the gender of uncommon words. IIRC, there is or was a radio program in France that would call up random people and offer them a prize if they could guess the genders of a list of 10 words correctly.
> in Spanish, gender is pretty easily determined from the word ending 99.9% of the time unless it's a Greek neuter, and there are only a few of those.
Isn't that 99.9% referring to the reliability of spelling heuristics for the words that match a heuristic? For example, the -o and -a spelling heuristic reliably indicates gender something like 99+% of the time, but only about two thirds of Spanish nouns end in -o or -a. There are a few other suffixes with string gender indication, but even then I think you can only account for like 75% of Spanish nouns.
I'm strenuously disagreeing with the 75%, especially in terms of usage. Almost all nouns that end in -a (unless they're Greek neuters), -ión, -umbre, or -dad are feminine. Otherwise, they're masculine.
There are plenty of exceptions, but 1/1000 words sounds about right to me.
edit: my point was that French is far more chaotic than that, and it does cause mistakes. Goes with the general observation that French is easy enough to read, but hard to write.
You remind me that France had (maybe still does?) national dictation competitions (championnat national de dictées). Much of French orthography is silent, so can be a real challenge!
Now, I carefully measure temperatures with a thermometer and have learned that 160F is a perfect pouring temperature, assuming it will be poured into a room temperature ceramic mug where it quickly cools into the 150F range. This temperature is pleasant for sipping and probably about the range where most people enjoy their coffee.
reply