This is one of my pet peeves. Not the "anti-social" character described in the post, but rather the poster's attitude. I've tried a few times to formulate to myself what it is that irks me, let's see if I manage to do it today:
1. Not every social interaction can (or should) be an objective weighing of ideas. It's not the other person's responsibility to enter into a formal debate with you at your local dive bar or whatever.
2. For their opinions to be valid, the other person doesn't need to conform to your idea of an acceptable conversation style (see 1). Also, in my experience, "anti-social" responses are detected more readily in the other person than in yourself, you're not as cool and collected as you think you are.
3. Feelings aren't forbidden. You may be a bit repressed yourself, meaning you feel shame or disgust when confronted with other people's feelings. Guess what... that's also a feeling!
4. If you repeatedly encounter these "anti-social" people in your life (which I guess OP does since he wrote a post about it) there's one common denominator: you. Can you honestly measure up to your own rules, OP? It takes two to tango.
5. There's a good chance you're sandbagging your conversation, meaning you're talking about some topic that you've thought about a lot, to a completely unprepared party. In my experience with people making complaints like OP, this is often combined with a controversial opinion about said topic. Instead of truly testing your idea against someone, you provoke an emotional reaction and celebrate your superiority because you staid calm and the other person exploded. Charlie Kirk was good at this unless he encountered actual experts.
6. Related to the above: come on, it's perfectly normal to get defensive and upset when you find you're losing an argument, don't act like you don't do it.
I'm tempted to take the opposite stance to the author. The web as a platform is wildly successful, and it's interesting to think about why.
Surely the "loose" standards encouraged neat hacks that at some point were encoded as best practices and then standardized. Maybe that would tempt us to want to "cut the cruft" but a) people probably thought that many times previously and b) backwards compatibility is probably more valuable than one would think.
To say that web as platform is wildly successful would be an understatement. It's so successful that probably like 95% people doing webdev don't even care about these discussions or have opinions about it.
I think that scale of "silent" users compared to proactive devs would be the most surprising number. Like for anyone who is "Rethinking DOM from first principles" there is probably like 10000s of randos editing ecommerce html templates, exporting results into tables and dataviz or making small uis for some internal system.
Great article! Does anyone know of a similar resource for MacOS?
I’ve been trying to use Tailscale together with my company’s enterprisey CloudFlare VPN and Tailscale rules never seem to evaluate, even with split tunneling etc enabled. Need to dig into those routing tables one of these days…
Funnily enough these "small" things are probably the biggest barrier for switching. I'm a long-time mac user and I asked for a Surface laptop at my new job to give me some variation. Luckily I was able to switch to a Macbook Pro after a year or so, not because of the mouse but because of Windows' awful font rendering.
I know, I know, some people prefer the Windows way of rendering, but I just get sad :) Great system otherwise, especially with WSL!
It's mostly a personal taste thing, but I find the macOS (and even Linux) font rendering superior to Windows, even on low-dpi panels below Full HD. On Windows, the letters are thin, have sharp edges etc. I've tried using the ClearType tuning utility but the results honestly aren't much better. The macOS system font also seems nicer.
1. Not every social interaction can (or should) be an objective weighing of ideas. It's not the other person's responsibility to enter into a formal debate with you at your local dive bar or whatever.
2. For their opinions to be valid, the other person doesn't need to conform to your idea of an acceptable conversation style (see 1). Also, in my experience, "anti-social" responses are detected more readily in the other person than in yourself, you're not as cool and collected as you think you are.
3. Feelings aren't forbidden. You may be a bit repressed yourself, meaning you feel shame or disgust when confronted with other people's feelings. Guess what... that's also a feeling!
4. If you repeatedly encounter these "anti-social" people in your life (which I guess OP does since he wrote a post about it) there's one common denominator: you. Can you honestly measure up to your own rules, OP? It takes two to tango.
5. There's a good chance you're sandbagging your conversation, meaning you're talking about some topic that you've thought about a lot, to a completely unprepared party. In my experience with people making complaints like OP, this is often combined with a controversial opinion about said topic. Instead of truly testing your idea against someone, you provoke an emotional reaction and celebrate your superiority because you staid calm and the other person exploded. Charlie Kirk was good at this unless he encountered actual experts.
6. Related to the above: come on, it's perfectly normal to get defensive and upset when you find you're losing an argument, don't act like you don't do it.