And I'm not an introvert!

All of this long predates Airpods.

I think this is a cultural difference, not a technological shift.

Life's so interesting sometimes! I consider myself an introvert, and I don't remember any point in time where it ever felt abnormal to talk randomly to the humans ("strangers") around you, regardless if you know them or not. We're both humans, why not see who the other one right next to you are? :) Maybe I'm just "too curious".

It was kind of confusing growing up in Sweden, where most people don't share this idea, so of course it felt really isolating when almost zero strangers actually engage even a tiny bit. Luckily, I figured out I lived in the wrong country relatively quick, and now live in a country (Spain) much more aligned with my own mindset, and having the time of my life chatting with everyone and everything, and they even respond back!

I really hate that introversion gets conflated with social anxiety or misanthropy on the internet.

I learned, and am still learning, to start with very subtle conversations in contextual proximity to the person without shocking/surprising them. And then, I mostly try to listen more and try to guide them to talk more. You will be surprised at how many a lot are eager to talk to someone, if they are being listented to.

I don't mind small talk sometimes but there has to be some kind of common ground. For example with conservative family-first suit types I have nothing to talk about and it feels awkward to make conversation, but with the leather/mesh/blue hair alt/goth types I can talk for hors.

"hey man, how're the kids?" "Is your wife recovering from [illness] you mentioned last week?" "man, have heard the music on the radio lately?" "what kind of music do you like?" "can I ask you a personal question, what was the hardest part of getting the success you have?" "did you know you wanted to be a boss/manager when you were a kid? No? Oh, you wanted to be an astronaut? Oh man, no way, have you seen the crazy stuff spacex is doing with re-useable rockets? We're getting so close to (relevant sci-fi from when he was a kid)"

You've just got to have an open mind, which you'd think you'd have given your conversational partner preferences.

I am only partly paraphrasing actual conversation with my father in-law.

I cannot stress enough that what you think will work here doesn't: literally every topic will be pivoted towards a rant about which groups are destroying the future (all of them), or how it's all a conspiracy or how they are plotting against you.

You've invented a conversation you think works. I have lived a damn decade of the list of "safe" topics endlessly shrinking, and the punchline is same: 30 damn minutes of alternately being told some half remembered conspiracy theory from Facebook or asking for agreement that group are bad.

That scifi concept from when they were kid? Well they are lying about that for money of course.

It is exhausting to deal with over and over again.

But you're painting two different pictures as if they are the same. The suited family type and the conspiracy theorist are different people.

Were I to know that I were dealing with a conspiracy theorist, the pivot is "I wish I could pay as little tax as rich people do (knowing fully well that they often pay far more than I do" or "yeah, it's crazy how the rich always abuse the little guy" or "what would you do if you were in their position (the same? ah well, at least it's understandable. Different, there, you see, there are good people like you and I left to fight the fight!) Or, hell, just for funsies you can play Conspiracy Olympics in which you try to outgun and outthink their own wild ideas. "Oh yeah, well 'spacex is a fraud' is exactly what a russian sleeper agent would say!"

I'll admit that there have been a small number of people that I simply could not connect with on any level, but working in non-profits and with volunteers, you get used to people's quirks and figure out how to work with them on their level. And what's more, you'll often end up being considered one of their few friends or even just "one of the good ones in their book" because so many people are just completely dismissive of them because they don't like their ideas.

You're engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that many of them complain about, their "no one cares, everyone's out to get me" mentality is only enforced by your "it is not possible for me to talk to or associate with these people". You are in fact one of the they that is plotting to remove this demographic from your own reality. It is not a stretch for them to imagine that you would prefer that they did not exist.

Kindness is not complicated.

There are fringe kooks at all edges of the spectrum and they are all tiring and boring.

But most guys on the train wearing a suit are just normal people who have to dress like that because their work requires it.

The suit guy probably has more interesting stories than you'd expect if you gave him thirty seconds.

I'm more comfortable among other outliers.

could ya try?

Earbuds stop this practice dead in its tracks. You can't deny that.

It is definitely something one can learn. I also like it very much. Most people are just very nice and love chatting a bit as well (just be respectful of their time and know when to bow out).

There are also other functions that purely having a good time. E.g. when you are in a train with reserved seats, striking op a conversation is also a good way of gauging whether it's ok to leave your bags when you leave your seat to grab a drink or some food. Also, people feel more responsible looking after your stuff once you have socialized a bit.

For me it's not super-difficult. I came from a small village where it is normal to greet people and maybe chat, even if you don't know them.

In my experience, this depends on the context. Everywhere I've lived the only time strangers try to talk to me is to either a) ask for directions (1%) or b) beg for money (99%).

I see people in these comments suggesting we should just say no thanks I don't want to chat -- I'd have to repeat that a dozen times a day. It's exhausting and I don't gain anything from it. I figure these folks must live in totally different locations.

> I came from a small village where it is normal to greet people and maybe chat, even if you don't know them.

Yeah, I could see that. If my village/city wasn't plagued by petition beggars or money beggars or merchant beggars I'd probably be more interested in engaging.

Probably an unpopular point on HN, but this is very gendered. There's a lot of women who don't want to be chatted up who wear headphones, and therefore a lot of men who are annoyed at this visible signal that the woman doesn't want to listen to them.

We can leave room for "not wearing headphones is a signal that you're open to talk" without having to pressure people who aren't.

This is true, but so is the opposite! I think the most important thing is to be kind and receptive. It's fine to start a conversation with a women wearing headphones, just take it in stride and don't be weird about it if she isn't interested in talking. I do this (with men and women) a lot.

It is true that women are more likely to be approached by creeps, and due to the physical differences between the sexes women are at higher risk in such situations. That said, we shouldn't dismiss women as too delicate or whatever to chat with. They're people!

Not sure where you're from, but where I live, headphones are a well-understood signal that someone would rather not engage in conversation at the moment. Some have been conditioned to placate the kind of people who deliberately ignore these signals by engaging in brief small talk rather than risking a confrontation, but this shouldn't be misconstrued as an interest in talking.

I mean I'm sure there's a guy somewhere who's annoyed by this, but "a lot of men who are annoyed" feels like making up a group of people to be angry at.

If you go to popular tourist spots in Europe there’s usually that one guy who’s trying to scam everyone who passes by. It only takes one to be a huge nuisance.

I joined my local fitness gym some months ago and use it to connect to people in the small town I moved to. Almost every time I'm there I manage to chat to someone briefly, and 50% of them have earpods in. Most of them now look up and greet me when we pass and multiple have up to me on other days to chat afterwards.

It's a skill and part of that skill is being able to give people an out of the chat if they don't feel for it, not interrupting at a bad time (mid set in a gym setting). My starter is usually a quick question with a "thank you so much, I'm new here" and if they reach for earpods to put back as they say you welcome, perfect you don't keep going. For the ones who want to chat keep them off and respond or ask something in return.

So headphones/earpods can be a barrier but for me it's a useful barrier and a clear signal, which helps both parties.

This is HN mate!

You need to design an app so people can practice it. (Alternately, rant something about "pick up artists").

Yes it's a signal. For you to go find someone else to talk to :)

That doesn't mean I'm antisocial, there's just places where I go to be open to talk to people. Like bars, meetups, stuff like that. And places where I'm just to get from A to B and I don't want to. Usually when I'm in public transport I'm going to/from the office and I'm stressed because I deeply hate working in the office since Corona (no more fixed desks etc). So I need my space.

I don’t.

(Said as someone who used to feel the same way, before I discovered the joys of talking to strangers.)

My question is, why do you think you’re entitled to consume strangers’ time?

But every time someone does randomly talk to me, I smile and laugh and I'm very cordial. Because people who approach strangers generally get quite angry when they're outright shot down. That doesn't at all mean I'm happy to talk. A smile is often just a defensive response.

If a stranger bothers me while I have my headphones on I may act friendly and polite, but I am actually very irritated.

"Sorry mate, I'm reading" is hardly difficult.

Also reading something would be a clear signal (also to me) that a person doesn't want to get disturbed.

When I have to tell you that I don't want to talk, you have already disturbed me. So, taking the cues here clearly is on you, not on me, at least in my opinion.

Edit: To clarify a bit, I'm talking about places with involuntary social contact, like for example a train or a grocery store. I go on a train because I have to get somewhere, not because I want to interact with people. It would be a different scenario say in a bar.

And yes, of course don't try to speak with people who obviously don't want to be spoken to. Quick way to find out, is to ask "Can I ask you a question?" and then you leave space both for the people who don't want to chat, and the ones that do :)

I used to judge that based on people's faces, but the faces lie a lot, and some people basically default to looking pissed off, while they can be very warm people, and also vice-versa, so in the end asking up front seems to be the nicest way for everyone to be OK with it.

In part it’s taking away the shared experience in public and making it “my” experience.

I'm more of a "talk when talk is needed" person but still social. i don't really interact with strangers in the street and I assume business social interactions (like restaurants) are just that, business, so I'm polite but i'm not going to crack a joke with someone i've never seen before and will likely never see again. My experience was the complete opposite, loved Portugal, would easily move there if salaries weren't shit, people were nice, i felt welcomed anywhere i went, might have been the only place outside of Brazil i have really felt at home.

I think its important to NOT BE RUDE with the random people you meet in the street but I also see no reason so strike a conversation with them. If I happen to see something that picks up my interest, like a band shirt, book i like or something like that, i might bring it up if we're going to stay in the same place for long, but starting a conversation out of nowhere just isn't a thing for me.

I feel like your conception that “ignoring people either consciously or through technology is rude” makes more sense in higher social trust situations. Like at a party or a bar, where bad actors are less dense and there is an expectation of socializing.

Yes, but I meant that the more people who block everyone out by default, passively and indiscriminately, contributes to social rust rather than trust. Ignoring or especially telling some people is not inherently rude or bad, but conducting yourself as though everyone is de-facto untrustworthy is a problem that doesn't seem likely to be solved by passively blocking the world out.

Like I added, I don't know why I'd pay to live somewhere where I'd prefer not to interact with anyone. If the place actually does suck, then I should do everything in my power to find somewhere that sucks less.

If you have social anxiety or ADHD, those are personal issues that need to be managed, but I still don't think it's generally a good idea to pick the easiest, least superficially confrontational method to signal that you don't want to talk to anyone.

If I have earbuds in, I’m probably listening to classical music. It helps me self-regulate in busy environments. I’m not listening to podcasts (which everyone assumes now, I guess).

If you interrupt me, I’m going to be polite. You won’t know that you’re causing a problem because I don’t like to be a jerk to strangers. That could be happening every time you talk to a stranger for all you know.

People like to make talking to random strangers seem somehow romantic, but it’s actually just selfish. You’re not interrupting my focus for me, you’re doing it for you.

While it may be selfish and pointless, it's the default expectation that in public space people can be spoken to, but it costs something to remove that possibility without also physically isolating oneself in some way. Not all public space is necessarily social, you can be alone in a wooded glen which creates a proximity barrier, but trying to preserve your whole private sphere while being in an otherwise potentially social space removes something from that space.

When I deliberately don't want to chat with anyone, I just take a side street or something. Not always possible, but it's rarely worth it; usually work is the semi-public space I'd prefer unbroken focus.

I do think it's overblown to make some grand statement about this behavior if it's only an occasional thing, but if the default expectation shifts to people hesitating to talk to people only because they might have headphones in, I think we've lost something.

It is not the social norm that anyone can be spoken to in public at any time, you are oversimplifying things. E.g. it is largely considered socially inappropriate to strike up a conversation with a stranger on public transit when you’re squeezed in like sardines; we don’t talk to each other to give the illusion of privacy and space. It’s also not considered socially acceptable to have a conversation with a stranger standing at a urinal. There are significant social rules about which adults and children can speak to each other in social spaces. Etc etc

There are and always have been situations where it is more or less socially acceptable to speak to a stranger in public. Headphones is not a new one, I knew in the 90s that headphones meant “don’t talk to me”.

Growing up in a small Swiss village I wasn’t born in, I had to learn that you basically greeted everybody you passed in the road, under the assumption that you knew them or were supposed to know them (more conversations were not needed).

Moving to a large Swiss village, I had to learn that saying hi to random strangers was considered weird at best.

First time I visited Southern California, I was very uncomfortable with strangers striking up random conversations. Later in the trip in San Franciso, I felt that the slightly toned down form of this habit was more comfortable for me.

Moving back to Switzerland after having lived in CA for a few years, I had to relearn old habits.

I still say hi to people when doing things like hiking a trail that’s off the beaten track: we’re sharing a similar experience and have that one thing in common. If it’s a popular trail or busy weekend, it’s more akin to being in a large town where you don’t say hello.

Another rural-urban division in Ireland is that in the countryside, car drivers greet oncoming drivers – whether they know each other or not – by subtly raising a finger or two while keeping their hands on the steering wheel. Since the 80/90s, this custom has been dying out in the counties near Dublin but I still see it in the West of Ireland. A few years ago, we were holidaying in West Cork and my wife was driving but hadn’t realised we were being greeted by the locals. As a Dubliner, she’d never even heard of this practice.

Edit: By the way, I just noticed your username. Seeing that you’re from Switzerland, I was wondering if it’s a reference to the Celtic Frost album?

Years later, when I’ve been driving and visiting the country, I found myself on the receiving end of this and it all clicked.

Thank you for this wonderful reminder.

Probably a rural everywhere thing?

    > Probably a rural everywhere thing?

We're talking to strangers at the bus stop, at the grocery check out, or just wherever. It's just phatic conversation, nothing needs to come of it. Chicagoans aren't just friendly, they actually love the art of the conversation -- every conversation is a chance to put in the reps.

But the minute you step into the suburbs, this habit disappears.

No, this doesn't track my experience of Chicago at all.

This is exactly the feeling I get in the suburbs of most places, and I think the nature of car-centric suburbs serves as a decent analogy for the Airpodsification of otherwise more urban areas. Suburbanites want their palace that they can tightly control, and it rarely matters where it is as long as they can drive to anywhere they need to go, but they don't really like people and it feels like a deeply antisocial liminal space. There's rarely any specific reason anyone would want to be there, and even if they did, they'd have to drive, and if they chose not to, people there use their cars as tools for avoiding interactions with strangers. You wake up, get in your motorized comfort bubble / killing machine, and then drive from point A to B and then back to Point A. If you wanted to go hangout, oftentimes the act of driving that you've chosen sucks all that time away anyway. Drivers then get dogs so they have some sort of excuse to interact with other people who have dogs, or kids or whatever.

Then if they're lucky, they wake up one day and realize they don't see any real friends that aren't their immediate neighbors anymore, and they've lost the ability to understand how to meet people outside of work. Their old friends didn't come out for that bbq because it's dead boring and the bbq master is the only one that doesn't have a commute back. The bar in their basement sits empty because it turns out people actually want to go to the pub instead of sitting in the basement. The novelty was never the drinking itself, but the feeling of coming together in the same space and place as other people hanging out having a good time.

    > Suburbanites want their palace that they can tightly control

Teenagers today are probably more likely to share your disinclination towards social interaction because they grew up during a time when AirPods are so ubiquitous.

Even the older introverted people I know, who I would characterise as quiet, would find it really rude to get in a taxi and not chat to the driver for the duration of the journey.

With people doing their entire careers remotely now I can only see this shift happening faster and more intensely. Small talk is a skill like any other and I think it's a sad skill to lose on a societal level. And I say this as a serious introvert that doesn't love to make small talk. Nine times out of ten, when I do make the effort to e.g. talk to a taxi driver I come away happier.

See that's interesting, because I *am* an introvert, but I'm quite happy to sit and talk to strangers. I don't mind it at all.

One of the few cultural similarities that I feel like London has with Scotland (where I live) is that you can just talk to people. People will talk. If you go to Glasgow and you ask for directions, chances are that the person you ask will walk with you to where you're going and point out good places to eat and interesting things to see along the way. Boston people have just learned this in a big way.

My son is even more so, and at not-quite-six he already appears to know most of the people in the town of 14,000 people where we live, how their farms are doing, how are the cows, what weight of potatoes are they getting per hectare, what prices they're getting at market, how they're getting on with that gearbox problem with the van. It takes about an hour to walk the mile or so back from school because he's got to talk to all the old guys and ask how they're doing.

Social Networking at its finest. I suspect he won't be stuck for a job when he's older.

    > It takes about an hour to walk the mile or so back from school because he's got to talk to all the old guys and ask how they're doing.

Northener Terrifies Londoners By Saying "Hello"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YxLiLFjYKc

I hadn't noticed it before, but they even specifically mention the use of headphones as a defense mechanism near the end.

I live in London, and I remember flying to Ireland at some point, and I was seated next to an Irish lady returning home from holiday who sparked up a conversation.

My initial reaction was "Why the fuck are you talking to me?" because I had lived in London so long I was thrown off by a random person sparking conversation. But turns out she was just a lovely Irish lady flying from from holiday

As an aside, I used to work for the company in Glasgow that build The Daily Mash's website before they got all into the ad-heavy money-at-all-costs thing. It used to be much better and the guys behind are actually pretty decent.

Consider that you may be!

You’re just surrounded by other people who are also introverted to the point you don’t stand out to yourself.

I’ve driven almost 4000 people home from the airport. It’s almost annoyingly ubiquitous for people to chat up the driver.

Smoking is probably the best lubricant (ie: borrowing a lighter, asking about a brand/vape, etc.) and people when they smoke are usually more open to strike a conversation. That's not an endorsement of smoking (and I've quit very recently).

I’ll talk to strangers when it makes me feel good. But most of the time I try avoid inviting weirdos to complain about minorities or marginalized people from someone who has driven away anyone close to them.

I hope you don't complain when people use social media or have LLM as their daddy to cope then :)

I would suggest that it's your avoidance of talking to strangers that makes you think this is how a lot of them think. And it kind of proves the point that society can suffer because of it. If you went out tomorrow and talked to 100 random strangers for 10mins I'd be surprised if any of them complained about minorities.

Chances are at least 20 of them would.

IRL I've never met one real person that has a 'racist uncle'.

But my personal experience has also been that the sort of people who ignore social cues and try and chat someone up who is wearing headphones while riding public transit or working out are generally less good.

"If you want me to care about AI? Start over. From zero. Consent needs to be a core concept of it."

That's not going to happen. A lot of these AI-skeptic pieces would be more persuasive or at least more legible if they acknowledged basic facts of the world. A plan that drastically curtails the AI business on a forwardgoing basis is legible to me. A plan where we "start over from zero" sounds utopian, which gives me permission (really, bashes me over the head with it) not to care.

- patients will worry too much, and - it will cost time and money to investigate.

Both spurious rationales cooked up by an industry that is at least as hostile to humanity as it is helpful.

Nobody is deciding for themselves to do chemo because they think something looks funny on a scan. All the scan gives them is a reason to talk to their doctor, who will do all the usual due diligence before deciding on treatment, if any.

And on the flip side, I hear stories all the time of people who DO have symptoms but they get dismissed by their doctor as stress or food allergies or whatever until it's too late. Maybe if patients were armed with a scan that shows a mass at the site of their abdominal pain, there would be fewer of these horror stories.

- patients will worry too much, and - it will cost time and money to investigate.

you forgot one more, which is subjecting people to potentially risky procedures for things that were not a health risk in the first place.

But, even granting they could be true, they would be true under the status quo.

Sure, a one off full body scan might be scary and lead to unnecessary action. But if a technology of the sort being described here were to exist, you would just get daily (or more frequent) scans to monitor the situation. Is that tumor actually growing or is it just a transient thing your immune system is dealing with? Way easier to tell if imaging is cheap, fast, and frequent.

And then there is the data.

No one knows what is actually going on in our bodies. If we had the ability to do billions of scans, imagine the longitudinal studies that could be performed.

It would radically alter medicine.

To the extent you can really call pointing their behaviour out as victimizing them, I would consider bad PR to be a fair tradeoff.

Person 2: [gives examples]

Person 1: oh ho! But those people are not in academia any more! They're not "practicing scientists"!

Person 2: ...

There's a kind of Schneierism thing that happens in these threads; like: I could ask, ok, name a scientist practicing in this field. They exist, but they don't have names your 3rd grade science teacher knows.

Again, to be explicit: he did not establish that his claims were true.

That is why it's quite worthwhile to ask if Watson is the best example available. The guy was pretty openly and casually sexist, and his racism wasn't much better.

OK, I'm really sorry, but "just for adopting" is doing some heavy lifting here.

Watson's other greatest hits: worries about Big Black Dicks; melanin injections as boner pill; what I call "The Cunning Chinaman"; and a whole bucket of others.

Taken in sum: it turns out you can be asked to leave a private club if you are being an asshole.

To clear the air, as a card carrying liberal (even a !gasp! Socialist) I don't necessarily reject empirical racial differences based on genetics. Maybe even for "intelligence", for whatever good that does ya, since "intelligence" lacks anything like a quantitative definition.

But I also think that - if they're even present, which is by no means certain - these are not significant differences. Structuring your entire society around quantitative racial differences, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, is not enough juice for the squeeze.

But, well, the juice isn't the point, is it?

It's the squeezing - the ability to brutalize your citizenry, to purge Unmanly Virtues like "empathy" or "introspection", to be always prepared for violence - the squeezing, being able to squeeze, is what is important. And the fastest way to do that is convince a bunch of people that other people aren't people. Europe tried that, a few years ago. You might remember that it did not go well. A lesson America never really got. Maybe someday we'll need to learn the same damn thing the same way, except instead of B-17s and Red Army Sex Crime we get to enjoy thermonuclear weapons. Come back Ivan. All is forgiven.

(1) He wasn't a practicing scientist.

(2) He wasn't fired for making scientific claims, but rather for saying things like "I'm pessimistic about Africa".

(3) He didn't do any research in behavioral genetics, psychometrics, or molecular genetics; his authority in the discussion was "famous science guy".

(4) He lost an honorary and, later, an emeritus position, in which his role was not "scientist" but rather "spokesperson for a scientific organization". I wouldn't want him for a spokesperson either, any more than I'd want Ibram X. Kendi or, maybe closer to the mark, Elijah Mohammed as my spokesperson.

James Watson was closer to Donald Sterling than to Galileo.

(1) Lost an administrative position, retained his tenured academic position.

(2) Did not practice in the space. As I understand it, he got jumped for appearing on Stefan Molyneaux's show (Molyneaux is a proud, open white nationalist, though that was not as obvious at the time) and saying he was agnostic about group differences.

The key thing here is, again: Hsu doesn't publish in this field. He himself loudly pointed this out! He's a physicist, not a geneticist or a psychometrician/quant psych.

From what I can tell, the mob attack on Hsu was not well founded. It's not my claim that there haven't been brigaded attacks on academics; there obviously have been. Rather: it's that the scientists who actually practice in this field and actually publish results continue to do so, largely without drama. "Group differences" in "intelligence" (or proxies like EA) are not verboten in academia.

There's an example of a scientist who published on group differences and lost his job, but that example won't do the work this thread hopes it'll do; he was fired for good reason.

The big question about this project isn't its distribution, it's the core question it posed when it was first announced: are Rust developers going to seriously entertain an alternative "standard library" curated by one developer.

> A person familiar with the matter said the large majority of that jump reflected a non-cash accounting charge linked to the company’s previous structure rather than its underlying operations.

> Before OpenAI’s switch late last year to become a public benefit corporation, investors in the company received convertible interest rights rather than conventional equity. Under US accounting rules, those interests were treated as liabilities and periodically revalued as the company’s valuation increased.

> As OpenAI’s worth rose, the increased value of those investor rights created a roughly $30bn charge, added the person. The charge is not expected to recur following the restructuring, they said.

> Stripping out the charge and other non-cash expenses, such as stock-based compensation of staff and computing credits from Microsoft, OpenAI’s losses were $8bn, according to the person.

https://archive.is/wIzZV#selection-1887.0-1890.0

It's not an issue if you're tracking the cash flow of the business or it's overall viability regardless of ownership structure. These book losses are just recognizing that the business has a higher market value so their ownership dilution commitments reduce the present value of the company more.

I can't recall the last time I used a "Logout" button anywhere. I no longer visit internet caffees...

With vanilla JWTs, you have no way to do this! But then if you add revocation checking on top (which people do), your JWTs are no longer stateless.

And once you do you need some state and then JWTs don’t make much sense anymore. There are of course many valid use cases for JWT so “JWT bad” is a very reductive take

Note the auth systems I create usually do not process payment info and contain very little personal information (an email). I still think I'm fine without revocation mechanisms.