I think that there's a major difference in the resulting mindsets that the two types of experiences form, though.
The first learn that nature is always present and doing its best to kill you / wreck your harvest, and that it is only through man's intelligence and social bonds that we thrive. I would argue a corollary of this is that one cannot tolerate malicious or grossly neglectful people around.
The second group learns that other people are a liability and that bad actors are just a fact of life to be tolerated and worked around.
Both approaches are clearly optimal for their respective environment. The former seems like a stronger foundation for building a civilization on, though.
This is becoming such a weird romanticisation of rural Americana!
Your civilisation is being destroyed because a largely rural constituency is able to clean a rifle in 60s but appears to have no critical thinking skills when it comes to a certain New Yorker.
Yes it’s good to learn how to be resilient in nature, but it’s also important to learn how to get along with and manage relationships with larger groups who are not always to be trusted.
The point missing from this discussion is that because of hysteria over stranger danger (not supported out by any real evaluation of or changes in risk) and because we allow cars to dominate our urban spaces, city kids are being denied opportunities for independence they previously had.
That’s the real change that’s happened … and we’re replacing real urban experience with corporate attention economies.
City kids can get on the bus or urban rail in actual big cities. Even in places like urban philippines or mexico where there is [often] no public transport, collectivos take up this niche. Kids abound in these places even in places like Manila where traffic is way worse and way more homicidal, and they take the jeepnee to go to the next barangay.
It's really mainly in the suburbs where neighborhoods are choked off by bike unfriendly freeways and no for-hire transit.
> The first learn that nature is always present and doing its best to kill you
> The second group learns that other people are a liability
Sounds like nature is simply survival + entropy and sometimes that leads to mixed incentives. Rural folks also understand people are dangerous. Per capita violent crime and murder is higher in Rural areas.
That's why I find it interesting, they're different expressions of common survival needs.
I can tell you wrote the article with ChatGPT. I’m out as soon as I pick up the smell. I don’t dislike the usage of AI, I just don’t trust. It if you haven’t written it yourself.
I feel like we need an acronym for this kind of comment. I am pretty sure approximately 100% of HN posts now include at least one comment where someone, somehow, knows that an article is written by AI and resents it.
For Claude we have the ever present "you are absolutely right" and this is like it's human mirror.
Something like TLDR; but meaning "uhg, written by AI".
I expect it will be popular to dogpile on this article and point out how it's wrong in all sort of ways. I don't mean to do this and appreciate the writing, but a core difference is that software engineering always strives to avoid catering to the idiosyncrasies of the time and place while civil engineering is virtually all about the quirks of the site.
I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.
My point is not that oil fails to generate revenue. Clearly it is a lucrative business. Instead, my claim is that the state economy was remarkably robust, productive, healthy, and well-optimized for middle class quality of life pre-2007.
Does it sound surprising to you that it was perfectly normal to rent a perfect acceptable two bedroom apartment in a safe town on the interstate for $300 a month and still easily find dignified, decent paying jobs without 1000 applications?
I've lived in many cities and work in tech now, and I can confidently say that, as it concerns the professions and jobs that unambiguously sustain and improve life, no community on the planet was more productive than my home state. There is more to the story than some shale.
My pet theory based on personal observation is that there's a strong inverse correlation between nature trying to destroy your shit and insufferable people.
I don't like this article. In particular, this section is especially poor:
> Block 1: We couldn't calculate fast enough. Solution: The GPU.
> Block 2: We couldn't train deep enough. Solution: Transformer architecture.
> Block 3: We can't "think" fast enough. Solution: Groq’s LPU.
#2 is outright wrong. Deep networks were made viable from residual layers and their refinement. #3 is also incorrect; "think" = compute so this is the same statement as #1.
Slammed an A380 in my old server that doesn't even have a GPU power connector & it works pretty well for stuff that will fit on it. They're only like, $150 brand new nowadays; could be a decent option.
A thought I often have - older millennials and younger Gen X have a unique obligation to fix certain parts of society because we are the youngest generation old enough to remember how to operate in and enjoy a world that wasn't A/B tested into a gray, lifeless background hum.
I am 51 and a Gen X. I did my part, I voted for policies to increase the social safety net, universal healthcare, etc.
This is the world that people wanted. I have the Ben Kenobi plan, I’m going to disappear somewhere and when the evil empire comes for me, just give up and die and then it becomes the younger people’s problem.
Given that we have written record going at least as far back as Socrates bitching about the kids these days, I think it's pretty consistent. But it's different this time, I'm sure of it.
I'm not sure about hubber but in the UK monoculture white english is still there is some places. Like Hertford where I grew up is kind of like that. But it's a bit boring - I prefer London which is all sorts of cultures and nationalities. (Hertford https://metro.co.uk/2023/02/07/hertford-is-the-fifth-happies...)
I guess? If we take this-gen (2026/01) AI to be human-like, then perhaps. I'm not so bullish rn tho. They good, they ain't that good. Let me see em in a robot body walkin' around ordering coffees interactin. then i judging.
The first learn that nature is always present and doing its best to kill you / wreck your harvest, and that it is only through man's intelligence and social bonds that we thrive. I would argue a corollary of this is that one cannot tolerate malicious or grossly neglectful people around.
The second group learns that other people are a liability and that bad actors are just a fact of life to be tolerated and worked around.
Both approaches are clearly optimal for their respective environment. The former seems like a stronger foundation for building a civilization on, though.
reply