Should more of us be moving to live near friends? • Hacker News Board

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#491

Post by GFischer » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 6:43 PM UTC

jncfhnb wrote: post #327

pjerem wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% of Latin Americans you see are migrants because, well, you are in the US. You are only seeing exceptions. The immense majority of Latin American don’t live in the US neither migrate there.

I’d guess possibly a majority would migrate there if given the opportunity to do so safely, legally and without abandoning immediate family though

Not everyone, I was given the option to go to the US legally (L1 visa) and passed on it, the person that chose to go instead regretted it and came back.

I am from Uruguay though, which is the best Latin American country, so YMMV, if I was from Venezuela I'd move to the US 100%.

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#492

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 6:55 PM UTC

veunes wrote: post #484

crtified wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate. There's something about the human group dynamic that, by default, isn't kind to certain types of personality. Internet-only friendships and acquaintances and groups can be deceiving too. They can be great and full of wonderful people, but the reality is usually that even if you spend 20 years in a particular internet community, you could leave tomorrow and few (if any) people would be talking about you…

That’s partly why I’ve been working on becoming less dependent on any external source for my sense of self-worth. It’s not easy, though...

It's very hard to imagine. I feel like I don't exist when I'm alone

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#493

Post by crtified » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 9:19 PM UTC

veunes wrote: post #484

crtified wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate. There's something about the human group dynamic that, by default, isn't kind to certain types of personality. Internet-only friendships and acquaintances and groups can be deceiving too. They can be great and full of wonderful people, but the reality is usually that even if you spend 20 years in a particular internet community, you could leave tomorrow and few (if any) people would be talking about you…

That’s partly why I’ve been working on becoming less dependent on any external source for my sense of self-worth. It’s not easy, though...

I'm glad you said "less" dependent. Never forget that what you're striving for a balance point appropriate to yourself. Your goal isn't to attain one end of a scale.

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#494

Post by scyzoryk_xyz » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 11:17 PM UTC

lukas099 wrote: post #487

hipjiveguy wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your commments are great, and made me lol, which is super rare - great insight, honestly... thanks But if you've never had kids, you're missing out on so much. This is just my experience, and is how I "grew up" from 20-35. I didn't want kids, but now love them so much, and as 55 year old man, with a 21 and 20 year old that still live with me, I'm doing so well, and have been blessed by them being in my life, and my w…

Not saying you’re wrong, but when people with kids say this, it means very little to me. Like of course you’re going to say that, otherwise you’d be admitting that having your kids was a mistake.

As mentioned in my parallel comment - the conundrum is that anybody advertising not having offspring is almost always going to sound shallow, immature, hedonistic to some extent. Like, nearly all arguments against having children feel sort of sad and lonely played out over the long term.

OTOH, anyone with kids would have to be some sort of psychopath to not argue for having them. Who the hell would believe another person’s existence can be a mistake? All my parent friends end up trying to convince me to have kids, and I don’t even put up any counter-arguments because damn - I really like their kids too. Even the ones who had them in the worst way imaginable!

I don’t think it’s merely about “admitting mistakes” - parenthood isn’t a restaurant menu option or consumer choice miscalculation you make. We are literally wired to love our offspring. We’re mammals - it’s not a logical decision. This whole breeding thing, it’s the strangest philosophical aspect of human nature.

The way I see it: if you can’t or if you don’t do kids, you better have some sort of conviction about what it is that you have to contribute. And it’s not about competition, being right, being smart - it’s about your own mental well-being. There is only so much fun to be had before you start to wonder.

I know this sounds like I’m arguing for having kids - I’m really not. I’m saying the decision not to do something can be just as profound against that absence. You just better have a plan for what it is you want to do with your time on Earth, when those mammalian instincts start kicking in.

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#495

Post by michtzik » Tue, Dec 31, 2024, 12:17 AM UTC

simmanian wrote: post #480

michtzik wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

As I already told you (yes, you), I doubt anything I say will change your mind. I do hope one day you will come to see that yelling ching chong at an asian man on the street should be seen as racist if you think a bunch of Arabs were being racists just because they said the word "Bangladeshi."

FYI, I doubt we've ever interacted before. In particular, I am not 'rayiner and I am not Bangladeshi.

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#496

Post by simmanian » Tue, Dec 31, 2024, 5:20 AM UTC

michtzik wrote: post #495

simmanian wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I already told you (yes, you), I doubt anything I say will change your mind. I do hope one day you will come to see that yelling ching chong at an asian man on the street should be seen as racist if you think a bunch of Arabs were being racists just because they said the word "Bangladeshi."

FYI, I doubt we've ever interacted before. In particular, I am not 'rayiner and I am not Bangladeshi.

If you keep this up i'm going to email dang. Your choice.

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#497

Post by Slava_Propanei » Tue, Dec 31, 2024, 8:29 AM UTC

xocnad wrote: post #425

diordiderot wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the American South community is as easy as picking a church and going to your kids public school sporting events. Are there problems, of course, like all societies. But it's easy and it works.

This presupposes both an interest in religion and organized sports.

[dead]

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#498

Post by Slava_Propanei » Tue, Dec 31, 2024, 8:36 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #488

zdragnar wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing what people will adapt to. A friend of mine living in Minneapolis said you can't lock your car in her neighborhood, otherwise someone will just break the windows to get inside to look for things to steal. One night, her husband forgot and locked it out of habit, and before the next morning one of the windows was broken. That anyone chooses to live like that baffles me.

There is no perfect place to live. Everywhere has trade-offs, and I bet we could both come up with 100 things more important to our quality of life than whether you need to lock your car door or not.

[dead]

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#499

Post by michtzik » Tue, Dec 31, 2024, 4:06 PM UTC

simmanian wrote: post #496

michtzik wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, I doubt we've ever interacted before. In particular, I am not 'rayiner and I am not Bangladeshi.

If you keep this up i'm going to email dang. Your choice.

Please do. I assume your post breaks this guideline:

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

Amusingly for this discussion, I started reading 'rayiner about a decade ago (long before this account) specifically because he seemed intelligent but I disagreed with him about issues involving race and the South! Being accused of being 'rayiner is an amazing twist to the story.

Re: Should more of us be moving to live near friends?

#500

Post by vehemenz » Tue, Dec 31, 2024, 5:23 PM UTC

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #349

Scea91 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atheism is defined as the absence of belief which is essentially what OP said. The fact that we are open to changing our mind if theoretically presented with strong evidence does not make us agnostic. You’d probably also accept that sun is made of cheese if presented strong enough evidence but don’t call yourself agnostic about the topic given your current knowledge.

Atheism is the position that God does not exist. An atheist is someone who therefore says “I believe that there is no God.” It is not a mere lack of belief, as agnostics can be said to lack belief in God as well. People who are simply ignorant of God also lack a proper belief in God, but this is not atheism, only ignorance. They simply have not come to terms with the subject and therefore have no position on the matt…

For someone concerned with the lack of intellectual seriousness of the New Atheist movement, you seem especially committed to ontological realism. Is there some compelling argument I've missed?

That aside, "atheism" can obviously mean both things—with regard to a belief or the endorsement of an "existence" proposition. In the case of atheism/theism, the belief part plays a substantial role—it distinguishes between B(~p) and ~B(p), the strong and weak positions, respectively.

There are other ways besides ignorance or agnosticism to arrive at ~B. For example, if my view is that ontological claims can't be propositions, then obviously I can't have beliefs about them one way or another. Or I could reject all supernatural claims out of hand. Why would you insist that one take a firm position on whether "God" specifically "exists" or not? Isn't atheism just a consequence of these views?

To put it plainly, logical consequences of other views can make one an atheist just as much as rejecting p outright. One needn't explicitly endorse or reject every mystical metaphysical claim out there. That would be a bit silly, just as it's a bit silly that we've inherited a special word for "atheism" in the first place.