Aye, and amid all of the (admittedly annoying) word salad, the "Claude" in this satire identified the reason the requested change was hard: someone(s) at some point had hijacked the button markup for other purposes. Un-doing all of that kind of mess is never a trivial change, and probably requires someone with more coding expertise / knowledge of the code than the given prompts reveal the putative user to be.

AI isn't magic, and it won't (or, at least, doesn't yet) enable anyone to do All The Things.

I'm deliberately not addressing the article as a whole, but I'd like to engage with your smaller point. My parents viewed all day care as "dumping [their] kid in an institution" and made massive sacrifices so that my mum could housewife for a decade+ with me and my younger sister. My wife and I have made a different choice with our son, and I honestly wish my parents had done the same - at least after we were two or three.

Admittedly, my wife and I are fortunate to be able to pay for him to go to an excellent pre-school (though the one local to my parents was similarly good), and I see him naturally acquiring a social fluency and confidence with his peers that I didn't have (if I even do!) until I was an adult. Furthermore, had I been cared for outside the home, my mum would have spent vastly more time with my sister when she was an infant and toddler, which I think would have been a lifelong benefit to her. I also think my mum would have been personally better off getting back to full-time work ~5 years earlier than she did: full-time parenting wore on her, and she and my dad would have been able to retire a few years sooner.

Those are all highly-dependent personal circumstances, so I'm not going to draw a universal rule - but I'm telling you this in order to caution you against doing the same. All families, and all individual circumstances, are different.

[Second thought] I am going to make one general point: the benefit my son draws is highly dependent upon attending a good school. Institutions absolutely exist where "dumping them" is an appropriate epithet to apply, but there is no reason why that has to be the case. I don't know where you live, but in my country the "pro-natalist" political party is also devoted to policies which make schools worse (cutting funding, lowering teacher pay, meddling with curricula, etc), which seems to me to be perverse.

actually, i strongly believe that the most benefits come from how (not how much) parents interact with and care for their children. i went to kindergarten too, and i grew up spending a lot of tome outside with other kids with plenty of opportunity to socialize, both supervised and unsupervised, but lack of my parents availability (to put it mildly) created an anxiety that completely ruined any social ability that i would have been able to acquire otherwise.

so sure, each case is different, and you are not wrong, but you are putting to much value on good institutions. the heavy lifting still comes from the parents. your children are doing well because you care that they do.

You are citing the results of an experiment that is impossible to perform.

Oh, absolutely! But, so are most of the lessons we draw from life experience, instead of, like, science. That doesn't make them unimportant to talk about, so long as we approach them - and each other - with appropriate degrees of humility and good will.

Don't leave us hanging, brother! What's the book?

Not necessarily something everyone enjoys as much as I did. But I wish everyone to find a book that he enjoys as much as I did:

https://www.webnovel.com/book/reverend-insanity_799685840600...

Whoa! Twenty-year+ Mac user, and I never knew that trick. Thank you for that.

> the supernatural events described on stage are very difficult to pull off even with modern effects. But they were impossible with Jacobean setups

Speaking generally, as a former theatre professional, using onstage "effects" is less effective than firing the audience's imagination, and inviting them to do the work - which, of course, Jacobean artists were well able to do, and their audiences arguably more prepared to accept. The best plays - and I do think Maccers is among them, although the three productions of it I've been in were mediocre to dire - give huge scope for that.

This was a wonderful article, that nails what's wonderful - and frustrating - about the show.

Corporate death penalty. I'm on board with that.

Thanks for this. I'll give it a try, though I'm not someone who experiences much frustration with Finder, because I maintain a solid folder structure, and use Alfred (first) for virtually all file interactions.

The deciders for me, in case you're interested:

- Privacy. It doesn't look like you are trying to get my data. I'll be using network monitoring to verify.

- Automatically groups like files, regardless of file location. Yes, I know I can do this manually with tags, but I... don't.

- Polish. The screenshots make it look like a native interface. Bonus points if I can set it to hide until mouseover, like my dock bar.

I'm most curious about how it will function alongside Dropbox, particularly with cloud-stored files. I have several times my HDD in Dropbox (largely in folders shared with me); I know Keptor won't be able to read stub files, but if it greedily downloads and fills up my HDD it'll be an instant day-killer and uninstall. If it reads on-device files, and then stores a sparse representation so it can still present them in a list once they've been removed to the cloud it'll be great; I will manually sync and de-sync some folders to get them into the data. (If it incrementally syncs cloud files to my device, reads them, and then pushes them back up it'd be amazing, and I'll buy a lifetime license immediately - but I'm not sure those permissions exist.)

I'm with you, though I do it differently. I have a git-status plug-in in my editor that shows me what directories -> files have been changed, and then which lines when I open them. Scanning the sidebar is the same as running "git status" first, but I prefer the visual representation.

> your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support.

Yes, absolutely. Or that a financially-dependent partner (I'm deliberately not applying gender), even without kids (though children massively raise the stakes), can become trapped in an abusive relationship.

I'm going to wade into political waters, by pointing out that this is a wider problem that can be addressed at the societal level. When the full burden of all poor outcomes is placed upon unsupported individuals, then individuals in aggregate respond by making more-cautious decisions - whether that's to stay in an abusive relationship, avoid having children, have fewer children, or avoid relationships altogether. The same could be pointed out for the choice between, eg, choosing corporate employment vs trying entrepreneurship. A society that insulates its citizens against some downside risks allows individuals more agency over their own lives.

Yep. All I want is allow/deny permissions on particular channels. For my little guy I'd set up a blanket Deny rule, with a few channels allowed; for older kids parents might want to go the other way.

All of the "parent better" messages are useless (not to mention out of touch) when technical tools to do so are not made avaliable to us. And, of course, those tools are not given because YouTube wants to drop kids into the endless algorithmic feed of slop. The age verification laws are stupid, and will nowhere address the actual problem. YouTube (and the like) - not parents - will still have full control.

It’s useless as a blanket statement, but not if you go in specifics. With enough public pressure targeted specifically at YouTube it’s completely possible they would add more controls, and is more reasonable than a complete ban of social platforms

I understand what you mean, but I do not, at this point, think "public pressure" is sufficient. I once did, but that was before ad companies (and they're all ad companies, at their root) unlocked the full potential (if they even have) of data-mining and algorithmic targeting. They know us better than we know ourselves, and make too much money hijacking our dopamine systems to respond to anything we say we want. Legislation is the only thing that will reign them in.

I'm not saying that social media can't be good, or shouldn't exist, or shouldn't be able to make money. Early-YouTube and early-Facebook and early-Twitter (and their fallen predecessors) were good communicative platforms. I used them, and by-and-large thought they made my life, and society at large, better.

It's the data-mining and algorithmic targeting / feeds that need to be regulated.