A bit off topic, but changing your name when getting married is so strange to me.
It is not at all common where I live (Belgium), in fact I don't think I personally know a single person who did.
Different cultures, different traditions. Personally I think it's a beautiful symbol of unity for one person to take the other's name (though I'm neutral as to which party should change their name, and I was perfectly willing to take my wife's name if she had wanted that), but of course that's the culture I was born into so it seems normal to me.
Not only is it strange, it’s obviously very sexist in practice. In majority of the cases, it’s always the woman who changes her last name. The husband gets to keep his. I still find it very strange and shocking that powerful women with successful careers in modern society still keep changing their names after getting married.
By such a definition any tradition related to gender would be sexist. The tradition is that the wife will change her name. This tradition is why it makes up the majority of cases.
No, any tradition that favors one gender over the other is sexist. Which is absolutely the case with the tradition of women taking their husband's family name when they get married.
Not really - this “tradition” as you call it obviously started back in the day when women did not have equal rights in society and only the husband’s lineage mattered.
How do you propose fixing that? Let the kids take both parents last names? In few generations you end with kids having their entire family tree as their last name! It might even make marrying within the tribe attractive again to keep last name single word!
First there’s absolutely no real reason for a spouse to change their name just because they got married.
You can do hyphenated last names for a kid and let the kids decide what names they want to carry forward for the next generation. Or they can make up their own. The point is it’s up to them and they can choose whatever they want and not be coerced to do something because of some tradition that is rooted in sexism.
Come on man, I think it's safe to say a tradition that favor's men over women is reasonably sexist, especially given the time the tradition established women were property.
I don't think Belgium's feelings will get hurt, besides wait until you learn about all the other things that Leopold II did.
I changed my name to my wife's name when we got married. Where I live, everyone can choose if they want to keep their name or change it to either ones. So its a free choice.
AND: Hope gmail will rollout this feature asap, so I can FINALLY adjust my email address too.
let motherLastName = "Carter Hughes"
let fatherLastName = "Miller Thompson"
let childLastName = "Miller Carter"
let childFullName = "Jean Paul Miller Carter"
Or so that is how it works in many countries around the world.
You might ask, —“Why does the father’s last name go first and the mother’s second?”— That’s an old tradition, and it can change whenever enough people in our society agree. As it stands, the father’s family name tends to persist down the family tree, while the mother’s family name often disappears in each generation.
Or so that is how it works in many countries around the world.
You should have given a more complete example, where the parents themselves have long names to demonstrate that something does have to get dropped when you have children.
It hails from when family lines were important, and you can practically only have one line reflected in a name. Unsurprisingly, most societies considered the male's name to be the dominate lineage of interest, although that doesn't hold true 100% of the time.
> you can practically only have one line reflected in a name
Not true at all. You can trivially have two family names in a full legal name. In fact many cultures do exactly that to this day.
Also worth noting that the male's name being preferentially propagated makes a lot of sense in a society where the best off frequently inherited their vocation from their fathers.
> Just because there is an alternative doesn't mean society will adjust.
"It isn't practical to do" and "society at large didn't go this direction" are very different statements.
Hyphenation is two names in a trench coat. Maintaining two names indefinitely works just fine as long as you discard rather than endlessly compound. Presumably the only requirement is that it be straightforward to trace any given lineage.
The traditional approach is for women to keep their maternal name and discard their paternal name on marriage while men do the opposite. But of course any scheme could work, up to and including each person arbitrarily choosing which name to discard (not sure how they decide on ordering in that case).
Another historical approach is the Foo Barson, Baz Fooson (Barson) approach. That scheme treats the male and female lines as being entirely separate so it doesn't quite match what you're after but it was quite practical.
Preserving more than one lineage and providing a cohesive family name isn't practically easy, and society did not go that direction, and that likely isn't a coincidence.
Discarding names doesn't preserve lineage. If you need a book to trace the names, then the point of using a name for lineage has failed.
> The traditional approach is for women to keep their maternal name and discard their paternal name on marriage while men do the opposite
It sounds like this scheme is "men keep one name lineage, women keep another".
Which, IMO, has the practical drawback of not identifying the current family unit. Lineage was important, but so was gathering all folks together into a household. When taxes, religious ceremony, etc. occurred, there was one household name on the roster responsible. This was particularly important in societies where men held certain rights for the household.
After having some persistent issues with my previous pi-hole setup, running as an add-on on my Home Assistant rPi 5, I moved to AdGuard Home on dedicated hardware.
I run it on a rPi Zero 2W (15$), with the Waveshare Ethernet / USB HUB BOX (16$). Together with a power brick (5$) and a meh µSD card, it's very affordable. I did add a small heatsink on the CPU and left the lid off the box to improve the temperature situation (it's in a small room that easily gets warm).
Software wise I've opted for DietPi, which works great for this kind of "dedicated device" pi setup. Current up-time is 135 days, with the last reboot being likely due to a power/breaker issue. It's truly become a set and forget thing now. It also runs Tailscale (not as exit node due to USB 2.0 limited bandwidth for Ethernet) and a dynamic DNS refresh script on a timer. It still has some headroom, but I prefer to keep it rock solid and do more fancy stuff on my Home Assistant pi, which gets rebooted/updated more frequently.
I do have the option to set my DNS settings in my router (ISP provided routers don't have that option here typically), so all of my devices follow.
In combination with µBlock Origin and SponsorBlock in my browser, I almost cry every time I see the "raw" internet on other people's devices.
The only remaining source of ads is if I watch YT via my TV, so if someone has ideas to make that stop, I'm all ears. (I used to pay for the discontinued Premium Basic, but I refuse to pay double for a bunch of crap "features" I don't want/need.)
It takes out so much frustration too. No more nitpicking about style/... in merge requests, the pre-commit hook will fix it and CI will catch it if you don't.
The more of this you can automate, the more you get to spend on "real work".
The same thing existed for micro USB before but Apple could not agree to that or a new standard, so the EU said "USB-C". The law provides for upgrades and mandates compliance with the spec, including PD. If the spec upgrades, the law does so automatically.
USB-C is a horrible standard to consolidate on because of all the confusion about various sorts of USB-C cables (with exactly the same physical connectors) and thunderbolt cables.
Similarly, I’m glad Tesla convinced all the other American manufacturers to go with NACS for the American market because the CCS plugs are monstrosities.
CCS is great in Europe. You can plug in your normal 3 phase 400V EVSE and charge at 22kW at home, and twice a year when you need it, you can uncover the little extra flap for 350kW DC charging for on route to your holiday.
USB-C suffers from unclear naming problems sure, but in my experience most of the problems are actually caused by shady marketing pages. If they just clearly marked cables and ports with their capabilities, using the same physical connector would only be a benefit.
Those aren't really going to have an effect on the charging though. This standardization is only concerned about charging.
So no one is going to pick a theoretical "USB-D" that requires every cable to be able to carry 40 gb/s to be a standard. I don't need a 40 gb/s cable to charge a battery pack.
I have at least two devices that are “USB-C” for charging but will only work with USB-A to USB-C cables. USB-C wall warts seem to need a handshake the device doesn’t do. So I still can’t throw out my old wall warts and cables. It’s terrible.
It can be done with 2 resistors. It's kinda required because of the same port on both ends. If I plug a battery into a phone, should the phone charge the battery or should the battery charge the phone?
USB-C is great for 5V charging. And probably not awful for PD either.
All the weird data transport, seems like a big pile of maybe it will work, maybe it won't. I think most cables will do usb 2.0 data and probably usb 3.0 data, which covers a lot. I've managed not to need any of the other things, so avoidance seems to be pretty good. The one exception being the nintendo switch that does hdmi over usb-c, but sticking with their dock works enough for me.
Not that I believe its easy, nor do I think AI will be super good at it, at least not before everything else also enshittifies into the habsburg-AI-powered dead internet.
I watched that video from start to finish and disagree with your conclusion. I watched it all so I could make an informed comment but regret spending those 15 minutes on it.
The author essentially made a video about a popular streamer, then went on their stream and baited them with 50$ and a video about themselves. It was literally click bait. It was so transparent that the streamer realised at the end what had happened but still decided to go along with it since it cost them nothing.
That’s just directed spam (which, by the way, is a word the author used themselves). It was one video about drivel. Granted, it’s not dissimilar from the other garbage that populates YouTube, but it also didn’t get views for being good. It’s the equivalent of video junk food. You know it, the creator knows it, yet it’s still hard to stop consuming.
The idea that success is earned through luck rather than merit is a firmly ideological position, regardless of the domain you’re talking about. If you succeeded via luck then that provides a better moral justification for the related ideological position that you should be deprived of the fruits of your labor as much as possible, for redistribution to others who were simply less lucky than you. It’s really just sour grapes.
The formula for success in any field is simply to make a product that other people want to consume. It’s not 0 variance, but if you have some insight into what people want, and you do the work to execute your idea, then you can simply work through the ups and downs and success is almost inevitable.
One of the few domains where this is testable has also demonstrated this. Writing is about as hard to break into as anything, yet Stephen King demonstrated success writing under a completely unknown alias. [1]
No he didn't immediately received the same level of reception and success as Stephen King does, but neither did Stephen King at first! That's why it's skill + dedication. If you look at some of the old videos of people who have succeeded in e.g. social media, they tend to have terrible production quality yet still significantly stand out from the crowd, even their early days. For instance this [2] is one of the first videos Vertasium ever uploaded, 13 years old now! That video, even now still 'only' has 230k views, and certainly had a tiny fraction of that when it was initially released - but he kept at it, clearly putting way more into his videos than he was getting out of them - until that trend reversed.
> One of the few domains where this is testable has also demonstrated this. Writing is about as hard to break into as anything, yet Stephen King demonstrated success writing under a completely unknown alias.
I don't think it actually demonstrates this. As your wording hints, the hard part of writing is getting yourself out of the slush pile and into an editor and publisher's hands, and Stephen King's actions relied on his existing relationship with said editor and publisher to publish under a different name. He never demonstrated pulling the feat of escaping the slush pile again.
In modern content creation, the similar metric is getting to, say, 1k views, or even as prosaically simple as being part of the 50% of streamers to get 1 view. It's not sufficient to have talent to get to even that level of success; there is a lot of luck necessary to get you there.
The mistake you (and a lot of others are making) is that the people who didn’t make it just weren’t skilled enough.
That isn’t true - I think the people who don’t make it are massively skilled. It’s not random in the sense it’s just selecting randomly from the population. It’s random in the sense that there are 100 elite content producers but at any given moment there is only space for 10 of them.
Stephen King has a massive leg up for already having built the inroads for having a successful book. I think if you give any elite, yet unknown writer, the same tools, editor, and publisher they would succeed. But to truly succeed from nothing may just depend on going to school with someone who became an editor, or the editor’s daughter showing them a TikTok. That’s what is meant by it’s largely random.
> The formula for success in any field is simply to make a product that other people want to consume
Well, the formula for success in selling products is this. Most people don't define success in terms of business acumen.
Except, of course, businessmen. If you perceive our society as centered around successful people, of course you'll see it as merit-based. If you perceive our society as poorly run and catering to the rich, of course you'll see success as primarily a product of circumstance outside of your control. Is it so hard to see that "merit" is necessarily defined in subjective terms?
This is just arguing over phrasing. It doesn’t matter what you’re trying to do, if you’re making YouTube videos, or music, or paintings, or cakes, or web apps, or cleaning diveways, your ability to succeed boils down to your ability to provide something other people want. That is the objective source of your merit.
Perhaps your own idea of success in life is something that revolves exclusively around your own satisfaction, like going off and living in the woods. But this is exactly the same situation, you’re just only trying to provide the things that one person wants in that scenario, yourself. Your ability to do this will again come down to your own merit.
Of course if you’re chronically frustrated by being less successful than you would like to be, then looking for alternative explanations such as luck will be an attractive scapegoat that could excuse you from scrutinising your own capabilities. But the human inclination towards doing that is certainly not morally righteous.
I don't think its black and white. I think sometimes success is a matter of luck. For example, in large organizations there can be a lot of roles generated where there isn't always that much direct pressure and people can be hired through luck (e.g. getting on with the boss, some types of diversity hires, being loyal to a company even if you are not that good etc.). If teams of people make products/reports etc. sometimes it can be hard to shine, and 'talkers' who don't contribute much can get promoted into a 'lucky' role.
Its not black and white.
You illustrate a perfect example of simply not understanding what people want. Talkers get promoted because talkers have social skills, and companies are social systems, and social skills are required to advance through them. Social skills are probably more desirable than technical skills most of the time. It’s not luck that these people succeed, it’s the fact that they have the qualities that people want.
You can succeed through partially through luck, like if a record executive decides they going to manufacture some massive level of fame for you. But this isn’t a viable long term strategy, only providing what people want is. Over time the variance of luck goes away. The luck outlook relies on the fallacious idea that you only get one opportunity to succeed, but you don’t, you have as long as you’re willing to keep trying. Maybe a failure on one particular day can be explained by luck, but you get to wake up and keep trying every day, and if you have what people want then luck becomes irrelevant and eventually you will succeed. That’s how basically every single successful person you’ve ever heard of has done it.
