• 13 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2021

help-circle

  • I agree with you. I love ggplot2. And I’m good at it. So it’s my software of choice when doing data analysis and when making graphs.

    However, I understand that there’s an upfront cost to pay to use it: learning to code, tidying data, etc…

    And beyond that, I don’t really do data analysis with spreadsheet software like Excel or LibreCalc. So I don’t know if a proficient LibreCalc user would be able to compete with a proficient ggplot2 user.







  • 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’m sorry about the soul-sucking coworkers and the outright rejection. It sounds painful and frustrating. Anyone in your position would be frustrated; it only makes sense!

    We can look at your situation from two points of views, and each point of view will reveal things that can help you better deal with this situation.

    The first point of view is the external one, the observable behavior, the one you’d notice if someone followed you and your coworkers/managers around with cameras. Looking at your situation from this point of view, it sounds like there could be a broad problem with your company’s management. If so, there might be very little that you can do directly. Depending on whether you want to take upon you a massive, perhaps Sisyphean task (pushing a massive boulder up an infinite mountain, with no end in sight), you could check out the management or Agile literature.

    By learning what good management looks like, you could be in a better position to accept rough situations, in the same way that understanding how a cold develops could help us accept feeling drained of energy, coughing constantly, and having to self-isolate to avoid spreading the virus. It’s not a solution, but it gives perspective. Beyond acceptance, in the unlikely scenario that your company empowers you, you could propose effective changes or implement them. However, I would not count on this.

    If you cannot change your company’s management, there are alternatives. Let’s go from the external point of view to the internal one, your point of view, the point of view that notices emotions, feelings, memories, action impulses, bodily sensations, interpretations, predictions, etc. From this point of view, we can see your frustration, your fear of being thin-skinned, your interpretation of potential rumination. In this other, internal, world of thoughts and emotions, we can’t do the same things that we do in the external world. We can’t get rid of thoughts. We can’t magically transform them.

    Others have recommended simply brushing these experiences off, as if they don’t affect you. However, humans hurt where they care. Things that hurt you reveal where your values lie. If you hurt when you see injustice, then justice is a value you hold. If you hurt when you see brutal rejection, then inclusion and kindness are values you hold. It’s inevitable to feel pain when you value something. It’s human. And it explains why you’re hurt; something in you that you value was violated by this experience. A good question to discover what you value is “What would I have to not care about for this not to hurt?” Finding out your values helps you get motivated and gives you purpose, even when the going gets tough.

    Still others have talked about changing the way you interpret the situation, including doing it by exposure therapy. This can be effective, as it fundamentally is changing the way that you relate to your thoughts and sensations. However, it’s important to do it with the right motivation. Otherwise, the exposure itself can backfire and reinforce the wrong schemas. What is the right motivation? Well, why would you find it valuable to continue in this job, despite its painful experiences? Maybe it brings stability to your life. Maybe it finances other projects of yours that you find valuable. It’s up to you to decide. If you do find it valuable, then you will be better equipped to push forward even when the going gets tough. I’m not saying this is the only path; again, it’s up to you.

    Now, as to pragmatic things that you can do in this internal world, I’d argue that the single easiest, low-risk thing that you can do with the most positive impact is doing the Healthy Minds program or something like it. It will teach you to relate to your thoughts in a healthy way, as well as develop better ways of relating with other people and with your everyday actions, including your work. This will help you regardless of the path that you choose. If you’re willing to invest more to reap more rewards, you could consider therapy such as Acceptance or Commitment Therapy or Process-Based Therapy.



  • Yes, I agree that it’s a hodgepodge of linked concepts. Sorry! Here’s my attempt at explaining:

    When you eat food, it’s like your battery gets filled. If, after eating a good meal you were to stand up and just stand there idly, your battery would slowly drain. Eventually, over the course of hours, you’d get hungry and need more of the food; you’d need to recharge your battery. Now, if your battery is full and you start walking, the battery will drain a little bit faster. You know this from taking walks, going on hikes, or commuting; they can make you hungrier! Now walk a little faster and the battery will drain even a little bit faster. If you take your sweet time on a walk, you will not nearly get as hungry compared to walking as quickly as you can.

    Another useful image is holding a cup full of water and tilting it more and more, spilling the water; the more you tilt it, the faster the water gets drained from the cup.

    Now, think about when you walk. When you walk faster and faster and faster, there is a point in which you automatically start running. Turns out, this point in which you go from walking to running is special because it leads to energy savings.

    Weird, isn’t it? Here’s a way to look at it: if you try to walk a long distance at a very high speed, you’ll get exhausted, but if you run the same distance at that same speed, you’ll be less tired.

    This is similar to some cars and bikes. If you’ve driven a gear-shift car or a bicycle with gears, you’ll understand that, past a certain speed, it’s much more efficient to switch gears. If you don’t switch gears, your motor will get exhausted or your legs will get exhausted. If you do, your car’s battery or your legs’ batteries will be able to push forward for longer.





  • I hear how much this diagnosis weighs on you. You’re carrying around this knowledge that you have NPD, feeling caught between wanting genuine connections and worrying that being open about this could push people away. It’s a really difficult position to be in: wanting to be authentic with someone you love while facing all this stigma and misconceptions about personality disorders.

    You’re not just asking about a diagnosis; you’re asking about how to navigate relationships, how to be genuine with people you care about, and how to handle vulnerability. These are deeply human concerns that go way beyond any diagnostic label.

    I’ve know many people who initially saw their diagnoses as permanent labels that defined who they were. I get why: that’s how mental health has been presented to us for decades. We’re told these are distinct categories, clear boxes that people fit into. But here’s something fascinating that recent research has shown: When researchers studied over 3,700 people who shared the same diagnosis of major depression, they found over 1,000 different symptom patterns. More than half of the people had patterns so unique they appeared in less than 0.1% of the group.

    This isn’t just true for depression; it applies to most mental health diagnoses. The whole idea of these being clear, distinct categories is breaking down as we look more closely at the science. In fact, despite decades of searching, researchers haven’t found reliable biomarkers for these diagnoses. The DSM workgroup themselves concluded this (page 8 of the pdf here as well as page 18 of the pdf here).

    What does this mean for you? Well, it suggests that thinking of NPD as a fixed thing that defines you might not be the most helpful way to look at it. Instead of asking “Will people reject me because I have NPD?”, we might ask different questions: What patterns do you notice in your relationships? What kind of connections do you want to build? What helps you move toward those connections, and what gets in the way?

    You mentioned being worried about your current relationship, about whether your boyfriend would still want to be with you if he knew about the diagnosis. That’s a really understandable fear, especially given how personality disorders are often portrayed. But I wonder if we could look at this differently. Instead of thinking about “revealing NPD” as a single big disclosure, what if we thought about building authentic connections in a way that aligns with what matters to you?

    The real strength I see in your post isn’t related to any diagnosis, it’s that you care deeply about being genuine in your relationships. You’re wrestling with these questions because connection matters to you. That’s not a symptom; that’s a value. And it’s something you can move toward, step by step, in ways that feel right to you.

    I know I often reference ACT and process-based approaches, and some might see that as my go-to solution for everything. But this situation perfectly illustrates why these approaches can be so helpful. Rather than letting a diagnostic label define your path, you can focus on understanding your own patterns, knowing what matters to you, and building psychological flexibility to move toward the life you want.

    When you ask “How will NPD affect your social life?”, you’re asking a question that assumes the diagnosis drives everything. But what if we turned it around? What if instead we asked: What kind of social life do you want to build? What patterns help you move toward that? What patterns get in the way? These questions put you in the driver’s seat, not the diagnosis.

    This isn’t about denying challenges or pretending patterns don’t exist. It’s about seeing them as processes you can work with rather than permanent labels that define you. The science is increasingly showing us that this is not only more accurate, but more useful for creating change.

    You’re not your diagnosis. You’re a person trying to build meaningful connections while dealing with certain patterns of thinking and behaving. Those patterns can change. They might be stubborn sometimes, but they’re not set in stone. What matters is moving toward what’s important to you, one step at a time.


  • Either ranked-choice voting or majority judgement.

    Here's why

    Majority Judgment:

    1. Voters grade each candidate on a scale (e.g. Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Reject)
    2. The winner is determined by the highest median grade
    3. Ties are broken by measuring how many voters gave grades above and below the median

    Ranked Choice Voting:

    1. Voters rank candidates in order of preference
    2. If no candidate has >50%, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated
    3. Their votes transfer to those voters’ next choices
    4. Process repeats until someone has majority

    Majority Judgment optimizes for:

    1. Consensus/Compromise.

    By using median grades, it finds candidates who are “acceptable” to a broad swath of voters. A candidate strongly loved by 40% but strongly disliked by 60% will typically lose to someone viewed as “good enough” by most. This pushes politics toward centrist candidates who may not be anyone’s perfect choice but whom most find acceptable. The grading system lets voters express “this candidate meets/doesn’t meet my minimum standards” rather than just relative preferences

    2. Merit-based evaluation

    Voters judge each candidate against an absolute standard rather than just comparing them. This can help identify when all candidates are weak (if they all get low grades) or when multiple candidates are strong. It moves away from pure competition between candidates toward evaluation against civic ideals

    Ranked Choice Voting optimizes for:

    1. Coalition building

    By eliminating lowest-ranked candidates and redistributing votes, it rewards candidates who can be many voters’ second or third choice. This encourages candidates to appeal beyond their base and build broader coalitions. Unlike MJ, it’s more focused on relative preferences than absolute standards

    2. Elimination of “spoiler effects”

    Voters can support their true first choice without fear of helping their least favorite candidate win. This allows multiple similar candidates to run without splitting their shared base. The system is built around the idea that votes should transfer to ideologically similar alternatives


    Both systems optimize for honest voting more than plurality voting, but in different ways:

    MJ encourages honest evaluation because exaggerating grades can backfire if too many others don’t follow suit RCV encourages honest ranking because putting your true preference first doesn’t hurt your later choices

    The key philosophical difference is that:

    • MJ asks “What level of support does each candidate have across the whole electorate?”
    • RCV asks “Which candidate has the strongest coalition of support when similar preferences are consolidated?”

    This means MJ tends to favor broad acceptability while RCV tends to favor strong but potentially narrower bases of support that can build winning coalitions. Neither approach is inherently more democratic - they just emphasize different aspects of democratic decision-making. </details>


  • I’m generally skeptical of comments on the internet, so almost every time I have read comments like this one that you’re reading right now, I’ve been like “yeah right”. Kinda like how “lol” means “laughing out loud” but when you read it online you don’t really expect whoever wrote “lol” to have laughed out loud? Anyway, I was drinking coffee, I read your comment, I snorted in laughter, and now my white shirt is full of coffee.

    I guess I’m also kinda mad at myself for laughing so hard at such a silly joke. Regardless, have an updoot 👍



  • How do you choose what facts matter? How do you choose how to communicate them? Who do you communicate them to? What does news reporting mean to you? What about news reporting makes it worth your precious time alive? What purpose do the people around you have when they amplify, ignore, or quiet your facts? These are all questions that are answered, explicitly or not, by everyone who communicates or relates to facts.

    We could play the impossible “no agenda” game. We could lie to ourselves and to others. Or, we could notice that whenever we are dealing with the truth, we have a point of view. We stand here and not there. We can learn to travel around the mountain of truth, so that we mitigate our blindspots. We can be explicit about where in the mountain we are standing (The north base? The vegetated slope? The summit?).

    Instead of playing the “god trick”, we can situate our knowledge. That’s the best we can do. Check out this article by Donna Haraway on situated knowledge. It changed my life. https://philpapers.org/archive/harskt.pdf




  • I do see how the narrative in the headline could be a call to action, but the article doesn’t propose a solution behind which the audience can rally. At most, the article describes how Americans can interpret the inevitable defeat. Of course, this text doesn’t exist in isolation; other texts would have to do the heavy lifting so that Americans rally behind a war effort.


  • Reading How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Feldman Barret and A Liberated Mind by Steven Hayes will answer your question. More broadly, emotion construction theory and relational frame theory will answer your question.

    Self awareness can be seen as set of relational frames. Relational frames are things like “equal” and “opposite”, “I” and “you”, “here” and “there”, “now” and “then” “more” and “less”… Each of relational frame (like “I”, “equal”, “here”, “now”) is like a Lego piece that you can combine with other relational frames (“I am here now”). Piece by piece, frame by frame, thought by thought, you build a sense of self! This is also roughly how feelings are built. Interestingly, your sense of self is not necessarily the same thing as self-awareness; people can believe all kinds of things about themselves and not be aware of them!

    You can use self-awareness to examine emotions (e.g. “I notice that I am sad”). You can also create emotions based on your sense of self (e.g. “I failed, and therefore I am sad”). Sometimes, someone’s sense of self does not accept certain emotions (e.g. “Real men don’t cry”), and this rigid and skittish sense of self will do all kinds of things to escape self-awareness. One of therapy’s goals is to shine a light (the light of self-awareness) onto the sense of self, so that people can become psychologically flexible and resilient.